High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/6148/2022dismissed

Paramjeet Singh @ Picchu v. State Of Haryana

2022-11-11Mr. Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-6148-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.11.2022 PARAMJEET SINGH @ PICCHU ... Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL

Present:

Mr. Manoj Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Parminder Walia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rupinder Singh Jhand, Additional AG Haryana **** HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J.(Oral) Through this petition, the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No.2 dated 02.01.2022, registered under Sections 170, 171, 384, 406, 419, 420, 506, 120-B and 201 IPC, at Police Station Chandimandir, District Panchkula.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court on 09.03.2022 and was directed to join the investigation but due to some unavoidable circumstance, he could not join the investigation. It is further submitted that on 28.07.2022, the petitioner was given another opportunity to join the investigation, but again he could not join the investigation. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that despite specific and repeated directions issued by this Court, the petitioner did not bother to comply with the same. Thus, he does not deserve any further indulgence.

AMAN JAIN 2022.11.11 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmentt

CRM-M-6148-2022 (O&M) -2I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, the petitioner was granted concession of anticipatory bail in the present FIR vide order dated 09.03.2022 and was also directed to join the investigation. Thereafter, when the matter came up for hearing before this Court on 28.07.2022, it was pointed out by the learned State counsel that the petitioner did not join the investigation and the petitioner was granted another opportunity to join the investigation. The said direction too was not complied with. The conduct of the petitioner clearly shows that he was/is not interested in complying with the orders passed by this Court and rather took the same for granted. The indulgence of the Court is meant for the litigant who duly obeys the process of law and not for the ones, who either abuse the same or have no regard for the same. In view the above, petitioner is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail.

Dismissed.

11.11.2022 (HARNARESH SINGH GILL) Aman Jain JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No AMAN JAIN 2022.11.11 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmentt