High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Rajinder Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 24 December, 2008

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajinder Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 24 December, 2008
Criminal Misc. M-No.34175 of 2008                                1
          ..

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                   AT CHANDIGARH.


            Criminal Misc. M-No. 34175 of 2008 (O&M)
            Date of Decision : December 24, 2008



      Rajinder Kumar
                                                                 .. Petitioner
                         v.


      State of Punjab
                                                            ..   Respondent


CORAM : Hon`ble Mr. Justice Pritam Pal


Present :   Shri H.S.Rakhra, Advocate,
            for the petitioner.



PRITAM PAL, J.

Petitioner has brought this petition under Section 438 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail in case, FIR No. 528 dated

4.10.2004 under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police

Station Kotwali Bathinda, District Bathinda.

In this case, the petitioner was alleged to have stolen a motor-

cycle. He was released on regular bail, but before the trial Court he failed to

appear and ultimately, Warrants of arrest were issued against him. The

learned Additional Sessions Judge had directed the petitioner to appear

before the trial Court on 17.12.2008, where he was to be dealt-with in

accordance with law. The order passed by learned Additional Sessions

Judge, in the given facts and circumstances, is perfectly justified.

However, the petitioner instead of complying with the directions of learned
Criminal Misc. M-No.34175 of 2008 2
..

Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, has come-up before this Court with

the plea that he was never served with any notice from the trial Court,

which plea is not-tenable. A perusal of the zimni orders reproduced in para

No. 3 of this petition, shows that the petitioner was not found to have been

residing at the address given in the bail-bonds, furnished by him before the

trial Court.

In the given facts and circumstances, the petitioner is not

entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail in this case as it is well settled

that the provisions of Section 438 of the Code are to be invoked sparingly

and in exceptional circumstances, which are lacking in this case.

Dismissed.


                                                            [ PRITAM PAL ]
December 24, 2008                                                JUDGE
som