RAJESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCUSED Rajesh Kumar has filed this petition for anticipatory bail in complaint case bearing no. 765 dated 26.11.2007 titled State through District Drugs Inspector, Gurdaspur vs. Rajesh Kumar, under Section 27 (b) (ii) read with Section 18 (C) and under Section 28 read with Section 18 (a) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (in short ­ the Act), pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur.

(2.) I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file. The petitioner was earlier on bail, but he absented himself from the Court on 01.12.2009.

(3.) THE petitioner's conduct disentitles him to concession of anticipatory bail. Certificate Annexure P-2 dated 09.09.2011 appears to have been procured to justify the absence of the petitioner from the Court for almost two years. According to this Certificate, the petitioner remained under treatment off and on for alcohol and Codein. However, no treatment slip showing that the petitioner had been taking such treatment has been produced, although subsequent treatment slips dated 12.12.2011 and 01.02.2012 have been annexed. Certificate dated 09.09.2011 was procured to move anticipatory bail petition in Sessions Court, which was moved on 19.11.2011. It is also worth mentioning that the said petition was dismissed by Sessions Court vide order dated 04.02.2012. However, the petitioner, even thereafter, did not file petition in this Court immediately, but filed it on 17.07.2012 i.e. after delay of 5 1/2 months. It is thus manifest that the petitioner is taking the court proceedings very lightly and leisurely. He has remained absent for more than two years without any justification. In the aforesaid circumstances, no case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made out.