The High Court dismissed a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. where the prosecution evidence was fixed on 8.9.2012 but the petitioners absented without notice.
Application for anticipatory bail dismissed being devoid of merit due to absence at trial without intimation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.M.No.M-35897 of 2012(O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl.M.No.M-35897 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision: November 16, 2012
Amarjit Singh @ Gopi and another
.....Petitioners
v.
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr.Mohd.Yousaf, Advocate for the petitioners.
.....
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
Crl.M.No.68293 of 2012
Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Crl.M.No.M-35897 of 2012
The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in case FIR No.92, dated 7.5.2009, under Sections 323, 452, 506, 148, 149 IPC, registered at Police Station Adampur, District Jalandhar.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, vide which application filed on behalf of the petitioners for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
Petitioners were facing trial in the aforementioned case before learned trial Court. They were on bail. The case was fixed before learned trial Court on 8.9.2012 for recording of prosecution evidence and, however, petitioners absented without any intimation. Hence, their bail bonds were cancelled by learned trial Court.
It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the case was fixed for 6.9.2012 when mother of petitioner no.2 was sick. However, case was not fixed for 6.9.2012 and rather the same was fixed for 8.9.2012.
In view of these facts, petitioners should have appeared before
-2-
Crl.M.No.M-35897 of 2012(O&M)
learned trial Court and explained reasons for their absence. However, instead of doing that they filed the application for anticipatory bail firstly before Courts of Sessions and now before this Court.
Hence, in view of these facts, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitionersaccused. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioners-Amarjit Singh @ Gopi and Jaswant Singh @ Chirri for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.
16.11.2012 meenu
(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted when petitioners absented from trial court without intimation and sought bail fora after bail bond cancellation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Amarjit Singh @ Gopi and another
State of Punjab
Ram Chand Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
