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
7 paragraphs · 380 wordsHarsimran Singh Sethi, J
Present petition has been filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in respect of FIR No. 211 dated 01.10.2017, under Section 22 of the NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Hathur, District Ludhiana (Rural).
It may be noticed here that petitioner was granted the benefit of bail by this Court vide order dated 28.02.2018. During the pendency of the trial, petitioner became absent from the Court on 24.05.2019 without any intimation. Keeping in view the said act, the bail of the petitioner was cancelled and bail/surety bonds were also forfeited by the Special Court, Ludhiana and non-bailable warrants were issued to secure the presence of the petitioner. Petitioner is eluding the arrest even as of now.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not join the proceedings due to the fact that his lawyer became entangled in a disciplinary case before the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana. The said reason, which is being forwarded, is not plausible as for the last one and half year, the petitioner is eluding the arrest and has not joined the proceedings and the proclamation proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner. Rather than surrendering before the appropriate Court and seeking appropriate remedy of regular bail, the petitioner is approaching this Court for the grant of anticipatory bail.
Once, the petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of the bail by this Court, by absenting himself without any valid justification and despite the fact that his bail stand cancelled as far back as on 24.05.2019, the petitioner is eluding the arrest, no ground is made out to exercise the discretion in favour of a petitioner, who has scant respect for the law. This Court granted the indulgence in favour of the petitioner by granting him bail and the conditions of bail has been intentionally violated by the petitioner. Eluding the law is not permissible and the petitioner, who has scant respect for the law, as being shown by him by his conduct, cannot be allowed the benefit of anticipatory bail.
Dismissed.
However, it is made clear that anything observed herein shall not be construed to be an expression of any opinion on the merits of the case.