AMARJEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.46 dtd. 16/6/2019, under Ss. 399 and 402 IPC, registered at Police Station, City Nakodar, District Jalandhar Rural.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was granted regular bail by this Court in vide Annexure P-2. Thereafter the petitioner had been regularly appearing before the learned trial Court. However, he was absented from the trial on 17/8/2021 and on that date he was directed to be summoned through non-bailable warrants for 17/9/2021 vide Annexure P-7. Thereafter on 17/9/2021 vide Annexure P-8 again the petitioner was not present and again non-bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner. She has submitted that the absence of the petitioner was not wilfull in view of the fact that the petitioner was not aware of the dates fixed before the learned trial Court and, therefore, the petitioner may be considered for the grant of anticipatory bail.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the orders Annexures P-7 and P-8 would show that vide Annexure P-7 on 17/8/2021 the petitioner alongwith three co- accused did not present themselves and against all the four accused non- bailable warrants were issued. However, on the next date of hearing i.e. 17/9/2021 (Annexure P-8) one of the co-accused, namely, Shivam, who was earlier absented himself from appearing before the learned trial Court, surrendered before the trial Court and was released on bail. However, three of the other co-accused including the petitioner still did not present themselves and surrendered before the trial Court and therefore, fresh non-bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner and co-accused on 17/9/2021. The FIR in the present case was registered against the petitioner under Ss. 309 and 402 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act and charges have been framed against the petitioner vide Annexure P-4 and therefore, the plea taken by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not aware of the dates before the learned trial Court cannot be accepted. It was not the absence for one date but it was the absence for two dates and such kind of justification is not acceptable particularly in view of the fact that co-accused, namely, Shivam had appeared on the next date and was granted bail. The petitioner has jumped the bail granted by this Court and therefore, does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail from this Court.