High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/46645/2021dismissed

Sukhjit Singh Alias Bablu v. State Of Punjab

2021-11-08Mr. Justice Amol Rattan Singh2 pages

CRM-M-46645-2021 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-46645-2021 Date of Decision: November 08, 2021 Sukhjit Singh @ Bablu

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH Present:- Mr. Vikas Bali, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rana Harjasdeep Singh, D.A.G. Punjab.

***** AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J. (Oral) Case heard via video conferencing.

By this petition, the petitioner seeks the concession of 'anticipatory bail', upon FIR no.120, dated 08.10.2017, having been registered at Police Station Lohian Khas, District Jalandhar, alleging therein the commission of offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 307, 324, 325, 326, 452, 107, 148, 149 of the IPC. Though otherwise this court would have been inclined to admit the petitioner to interim bail, he having been summoned under the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. and therefore, presently at least, his custodial interrogation would not seem to be required; however, it is seen that the petitioner was initially ordered to be summoned by the trial court in SACHIN MEHTA 2021.11.11 14:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

CRM-M-46645-2021 -2the year 2018, but with him not having appeared before that court, eventually non-bailable warrants were issued to secure his presence, [though it has been stated by the trial court in its order dated 08.01.2020 that inadvertently, process could not be issued against him (under Section 82/83 of the Cr.P.C.)].

Thereafter, twice, non-bailable warrants were not issued by the Ahlmad of that court but eventually, as recorded in the order dated 17.09.2021, the warrants were duly received back executed but with the petitioner not having come present before that court even then. Obviously, the petitioner has been avoiding appearance before that court as has also been recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in an order passed in a similar petition filed before that court. In view of the above, without making any comment on the merits of the case, I see no ground to entertain this petition. In such circumstances, this petition is dismissed.

November 08, 2021 (AMOL RATTAN SINGH) Sachin M JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No SACHIN MEHTA 2021.11.11 14:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh