Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Extract of the order dated 17.01.2018 consists of three different orders, which are as follows :

"Ist order :
Present : AR for complainant in person represented by Sh. JK Dang, Advocate.
Accused not present.
Today case was fixed for arguments. Case called several times since morning but neither accused nor his counsel has appeared on behalf of accused. Proxy counsel Sh. Paras Yadav, Adv., appeared on behalf of accused and 5 of 15 requested for adjournment. When he was asked about the whereabouts of accused, he pleaded his ignorance. Let, the case file be taken up after lunch."

IIIrd order :

"Present : AR for complainant in person represented by Sh. JK Dang, Advocate.
Accused not present.
It is 02.30 PM now. At this stage, Sh. Paras Yadav, proxy counsel again appeared before the court and moved an exemption application on behalf of accused stating that the accused is suffering from viral fever. Exemption application is not supported by any medical certificate. Complainant and his counsel who kept on waiting since morning have left the court premises. This court has already issued non bailable warrants against the accused. The accused is in habit of moving such kind of exemption applications. His conduct has already been noted in the previous orders 6 of 15 passed by this court. It seems that the accused has no regard for this court and he is taking the things in a very casual manner. The defence counsel is also not appearing in the court despite repeated instructions from the court to argue the matter. The case has already been delayed considerably due to the casual approach of the accused and his counsel. Considering the act & conduct of the accused, the exemption application of the accused from personal appearance stands dismissed. Now, the case stands adjourned to the date already fixed, i.e., for 29.01.2018, for issuance of non bailable warrants against the accused."

e) Application seeking pre-arrest bail, the past record of the petitioner is not unblemished. Once he was declared a proclaimed person on account of his unjustified absence after which he was fortunate enough that this Court allowed him pre-arrest bail. For as many as 22 times, he has availed liberty of the court to remain exempted from personal appearance at the time of call of the case. At no stage, he informed the court in advance about his inability to came present on the date fixed in his matter. On 17.01.2018, his counsel Sh. Paras Yadav, Advocate was before the court to request for an adjournment, but even he was not informed by the petitioner about alleged illness and it was for this reason that the counsel pleaded his ignorance about the whereabouts of the petitioner. Now petitioner is coming with a counter allegation over the court that trial court was duly informed about his ill health still trial court, to his strange, not correctly mentioned in the zimni orders in the morning itself that there is a written application seeking exemption from appearance. Court has no 7 of 15 reason to disbelieve JMIC when the trial court in its first zimni order refers the presence of Sh. Paras Yadav, Advocate with a sorry figure about the whereabouts of the petitioner. Petitioner has not whispered even a single word about the conduct of his counsel Sh. Paras Yadav, Advocate and it strengths that Sh. Paras Yadav, Advocate was actually present before the court on said day, but petitioner was even having a communication gap with his counsel. Petitioner is further levelling allegation over the presiding officer that JMIC on the pretext of non availability of medical certificate at that point of time wrongly declined the exemption application and passed wrong orders. No medical certificate of petitioner has been placed before court to show that petitioner was actually medically declared unfit to attend the court on 17.01.2018. Conduct of the petitioner although makes a tough case, but courts in India are always humane and never go low to teach a lesson to the accused at the stage of grant of concession of bail even if accused has committed some procedural lapses in such like matters. The focus of the courts always remains over deciding the cases on its merits. Since all the three cases before JMIC have already riped and were running fixed for final arguments when the petitioner turned absent in each of them, hence, while deciding his application under the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C., Addl. Sessions Judge taken this into account observed, ends of the justice will met if petitioner - Ashwani K. Chawla is stood directed to surrender before JMIC on 11.04.2018 to attend further hearings in all those 8 of 15 matters under a protective order of this court, but he has to indemnify the inconveniences faced by the respondent - complainant, so, he will have to tender bank draft in the sum of rupees one lakh in favour of respondent - complainant in each of the three complaints as costs for unnecessary harassment to complainant, upon which he would be allowed to fresh bail by JMIC in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with one surety. The above mentioned cost will, however, not be considered as any payment under the provisions contained under section 446 Cr.P.C. In other words, learned JMIC will have to initiate appropriate steps under section 446 Cr.P.C against the petitioner and his surety, as per law and the above direction for payment of cost to the respondent