AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
11 paragraphs · 231 wordsAmol Rattan Singh, J
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner not having been able to furnish the bail/surety bonds as he was required to upon him
having been admitted to bail vide the order dated 14.12.2018 (copy Annexure P-2), he may be granted one opportunity to do the needful.
Having considered the matter, it is seen that even on 14.12.2018 bail was granted to the petitioner on an application filed by him under Section 438 of
the Cr.P.C., by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, after he had absented himself once before the trial Court.
Thereafter, as has been noticed in the order of that Court, refusing to extend time to furnish the bail/surety bonds, the period of 10 days given to him to
furnish such bonds expired on 25.12.2018, whereas even the application seeking such extension of time was filed on 11.2.2019.
Consequently, it having been observed in that order that the petitioner had taken the directions of the Court very lightly and had intentionally therefore
not complied with the directions passed, I see absolutely no reason to differ with the aforesaid observations of the learned Sessions Judge.
Hence, this petition is dismissed. However, upon the petitioner surrendering before the trial Court and filing any application for bail under Section 439
of the Cr.P.C., it would be naturally dealt with on its own merits, as expeditiously as possible.