Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gian Kaur vs The State Of Punjab on 20 September, 2012
Crl. Misc. No. M- 3675 of 2011
----1--
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA,
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M- 3675 of 2011
Date of decision. 25.09.2012
Gian Kaur ....... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Punjab ........ Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
Present:- Mr. N.K. Verma,Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, Addl. AG, Punjab
Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate for the complainant.
--
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
Gian Kaur, the petitioner has sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No.47 dated 16.03.2004 at Police Station Payal, District Ludhiana, for an offence punishable under sections 420, 498-A and 506 IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that before registration of the case, the petitioner had left India for Canada in February 2004 and she did not return to India thereafter. According to him, vide orders dated 08.11.2011 passed by this court, the petitioner was directed to appear before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana on or before Crl. Misc. No. M- 3675 of 2011
----2--
18.11.2011 and submit her bail bonds. He has further submitted that in compliance with the terms of this order, bail bonds were furnished before the said court. According to him, supplementary challan was filed thereafter on 12.01.2012. He has further submitted that the petitioner failed to appear before the court thereafter.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that after her appearance before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana and submitting her bail bonds, the police filed a supplementary challan against her on 12.01.2012. According to him, she had been declared a proclaimed offender in this case on 22.05.2006. He has further submitted that the petitioner is still not appearing in the court after submitting the bail bonds and she is not even in India.
Learned counsel for the complainant adopting the submissions made by learned State counsel has further added that on the very next date given by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana for appearance of the petitioner, she failed to appear. According to him, she had filed this petition even before her arrival in India and after her admission to bail under the orders dated 08.11.2011 she again went abroad. According to him, in these circumstances, she is not entitled to any concession and the petition merits dismissal.
What is apparent on the record is that the petitioner is not in India and she is seeking bail while staying abroad. She came for a short while in India and under the orders dated 08.11.2011 she furnished bail bonds and left India soon thereafter. She did not seek permission of the Crl. Misc. No. M- 3675 of 2011
----3--
court to leave India. She not only violated the terms of her bonds but also abused the concession given by this court. It only appears that she had to come to India for some reason and got the concession of bail, so that she could move freely in India for the time she wanted to stay here and then abusing the order of the court, she left India. She had been declared a proclaimed offender on 22.05.2006. Even if she was admitted to interim bail, the said order is still intact. The petitioner in these circumstances, does not appear to be entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail.
The petition is, consequently, dismissed.
September 25, 2012 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) dinesh JUDGE