High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/6178/2016dismissed

Sarmukh Singh v. State Of Punjab And ANR.

2017-05-08Mr. Justice Fateh Deep Singh2 pages

CRM No.M-6178 of 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-6178 of 2016 Decided on: 08.05.2017 Sarmukh Singh ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL Present :

Mr. D.S. Gandhi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ankur Jain, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. V.K. Sandhir, Advocate for respondent No.2.

REKHA MITTAL, J.

On 21.04.2017, order passed by this Court reads as follows:- "The petitioner prays for grant of pre arrest bail in FIR No. 02 dated 21.1.2016 for offence under Sections 498-A, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at police station, Women, Amritsar. On 11.1.2017, application filed by the petitioner for recalling order dated 9.12.2016 dismissing the main petition was allowed and the petition was ordered to be restored with a specific direction that the petitioner would be present in the court on the next date of hearing. Since then, the petitioner has not caused appearance before this Court.

A relevant extract from order dated 24.3.2017 passed by this Court, reads as follows:- "On 11.1.2017, it was ordered that petitioner would be present in the Court on the next date of hearing. There was no representation on behalf of Mohd. Yakub 2017.05.10 09:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CRM No.M-6178 of 2016 the petitioner on 7.2.2017 much less the petitioner being present in the Court. Last opportunity is provided to the petitioner to be present before the Court failing which the petition shall be dismissed. Adjourned to 21.4.2017."

Sh. D.S.Gandhi, Advocate counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is unable to appear before the Court as he has met with an accident today at Jalandhar.

Another opportunity is provided to the petitioner to cause appearance before the Court.

Adjourned to 8.5.2017."

Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not come present despite intimation to him. He has nothing to submit to justify his absence. On the contrary, he says that the petition may be dismissed as withdrawn but the said request is declined. In view of conduct of the petitioner flouting the orders passed by this Court, he is not entitled to pre-arrest bail, a concession to be allowed by the Court.

Dismissed.

08.05.2017 (REKHA MITTAL) yakub JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No Mohd. Yakub 2017.05.10 09:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh