Desh Raj v. State

$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.REV.P. 222/2012 & Crl. M.(Bail) No.809/2012 DESH RAJ ..... Petitioner Through:

None.

Versus

STATE ..... Respondent Through:

Mr. Tarang Srivastava, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with SI Lokendra Singh, P.S. Okhla Industrial Area.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

O R D E R

% 10.08.2018 Perusal of the records would show that there is default in appearance on behalf of the petitioner consistently or otherwise, adjournments have been sought on behalf of the petitioner.

On 18.03.2016, an adjournment was sought by the petitioner. Since neither he nor his counsel appeared on 21.11.2016, bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner to secure his presence in the Court. On 03.08.2017, even on the second call, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner and in the interest of justice, adverse orders were deferred. Again on 23.11.2017, neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared even on the second call at 15:46 hours and in the interest of justice, the Court again deferred passing of any adverse order against him. On 14.03.2018, again there was default in appearance, therefore non-bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner and notice under section 446 Cr.P.C. too

was issued against his surety. Again on 02.04.2018, an adjournment was sought on behalf of the petitioner due to the non-availability of the petitioner. He appeared on the next date i.e. on 26.04.2018 with his counsel. On 24.05.2018, an adjournment was sought on behalf of the petitioner's counsel. The same was repeated on 27.07.2018. On 01.08.2018, the case could not be taken up for want of time. Today, again at 12:53 hours, neither the petitioner nor his counsel is present.

The case is dismissed in default.

NAJMI WAZIRI, J.

AUGUST 10, 2018 sb