Criminal Misc. No.23011 of 2008 -1-
****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No.M-23011 of 2008
Date of decision : 9.9.2008
Ajay Singhal .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
****
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND
Present: Mr. Kuldip Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner.
S. D. ANAND, J.
The petitioner, who is facing a prosecution under Section
15 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 absented from the
learned Trial Court ( Special Environment Court, Kurukshetra) on
12.6.2008 on which (date) a public servant was present in the Court
for being cross-examined. A plea for exemption from personal
appearance was filed on behalf of the petitioner. The averment
made in the course thereof was that petitioner was suffering from
hyper-tension. The application was supported by a medical
certification.
Learned Trial Court did not agree to grant exemption from
personal appearance. It proceeded to order the cancellation of bail
of the petitioner-accused. It further ordered the issuance of warrants
of arrest to procure the presence of the petitioner.
The petitioner filed an anticipatory bail plea before the
Criminal Misc. No.23011 of 2008 -2-
****
Court of Sessions at Kurukshetra. That Court declined the plea nad
informed the petitioner that he could surrender before the Trial Court
and apply for the grant of regular bail.
I find the plea on behalf of the petitioner to be
unsustainable. As would be apparent from the undated medical
certification (Annexure P-2), issued by a private hospital, the
petitioner “was suffering from severe hypertension and was advised
bed rest on 1.6.2008 to 14.6.2008”. It is, thus, not a case where the
petitioner had consulted the aforesaid medical practitioner and
certain medication had been advised to him. The issuance of a such
like certification has to be treated as an exercise in futility particularly
because it undated and it all appears to be a made up affair. If the
petitioner did not want to obstruct the course of justice, he could
have instructed his counsel to proceed with the cross-examination on
the public servant who appeared before the Court on that date. It
appears that only object of the petitioner was somehow secure
adjournment on that date. It would be pertinent to notice here that
the relevant case pertained to the year 2006. If such instruction had
been given to the learned counsel, the petitioner could have been
able to urge bonafides on hisbehalf in order to buttress the plea
pending before this Court.
The petition is held to be devoid of merit and is ordered to
be dismissed. However, I have no hesitation in allowing the verbal
request of the learned counsel of the petitioner for a direction to the
learned Trial Court to decide the bail plea (which may be filed by the
Criminal Misc. No.23011 of 2008 -3-
****
petitioner on the next date of hearing i.e. 17.9.2007) on that itself.
There should be no difficulty in disposal of that plea on that very day
because the case is listed for that date and the opposite party would
also be expected to be present to prosecute the complaint.
Disposed of accordingly.
September 09, 2008 (S. D. ANAND)
Pka JUDGE
Criminal Misc. No.23011 of 2008 -4-
****