Dinesh Kumar Pandey v. State Of Punjab

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ......

Criminal Misc. No.M-35617 of 2016 .....

Date of decision:.20.10.2016 Dinesh Kumar Pandey

...Petitioner

v.

State of Punjab

...Respondent

....

Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh .....

Present:

Mr. Akshay Kumar Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Shivali, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

.....

Inderjit Singh, J.

This petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for the grant of pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.242 dated 26.9.2013 registered for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC at Police Station Phase I, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali and also for quashing the order dated 2.1.2016 (Annexure-P.6) whereby the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed person.

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the petitioner may be allowed to withdraw this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of the order dated 2.1.2016, whereby the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed person. The petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Cr. Misc. No.M-35617 of 2016 [2] is dismissed as withdrawn.

Notice of motion in petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been issued in this case.

Ms Shivali, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab has put in appearance on behalf of the State and and contested this petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab and have gone through the record. From the record, I find that the present petitioner has stated that at the time of absence from the proceedings on 10.9.2015 he was in the Defence Services and could not attend the Court. Now he has retired from the service. It is also stated that he has been declared proclaimed offender vide order dated 2.1.2016. The learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that the absence was not intentional.

Keeping in view the above facts that at the time of absence from the proceedings in the trial Court, the petitioner was in the Defence Services and was posted at far away place that is why he could not appear before the trial Court, I find merit in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Otherwise also, the trial of the case will take a long time. No useful purpose will be served by sending him to custody and then keep him in custody till the disposal of the case. Therefore, keeping in view these facts and circumstances, I accept this criminal miscellaneous petition and it is directed that the petitioner will appear before the trial Court within fifteen days from today and the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate will release him on bail to its

Cr. Misc. No.M-35617 of 2016 [3] satisfaction, otherwise this petition will be treated as dismissed. October 20, 2016.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* NOTE:

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No