Tarsem Singh v. State Of Punjab And Another

CRM-M-43045-2019 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH.

Crl. Misc. No.M-43045 of 2019 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 14, 2019 Tarsem Singh ......PETITIONER(s).

VERSUS

State of Punjab and another ....RESPONDENT(s).

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

Present:

Mr. G.S. Salana, Advocate for the petitioner (s).

******* SURINDER GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in Criminal Complaint No.498/2013 dated 09.04.2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 463, 464, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, titled as "Harmeet Singh Vs. Tarsem Singh etc." pending in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khamano, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

Heard.

The petitioner was on bail in this case. During pendency of the complaint, he absented and applied for bail again. It transpired during pendency of his bail application before the trial Court that the reason for his absence given in the application was not correct and he had actually gone abroad without permission of the Court in violation of the terms of bail. SACHIN MEHTA 2019.10.15 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

CRM-M-43045-2019 -2Firstly, the petitioner has violated the term of bail allowed to him by going abroad without seeking permission of the Court and secondly, in his application before the trial Court, he has concealed this fact. Though in this petition, he virtually admits going abroad, but has not come up with any explanation as to why he did not seek permission or informed the trial Court before going abroad. Learned counsel for the petitioner when confronted with this fact, fairly admits that petitioner had gone abroad and could not appear on 23.07.2019. Learned Court below while declining the bail, has perused the passport of the petitioner while observing that the reasons given by the petitioner while explaining his absence on 23.07.2019 are false.

Keeping in view the above facts and circumstance and conduct of the petitioner, I do not find any reason to exercise the discretionary power of this Court to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

This petition has no merits. Dismissed.

( SURINDER GUPTA ) October 14, 2019 JUDGE Sachin M.

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No SACHIN MEHTA 2019.10.15 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh