- (1.) CHALLENGE in this Criminal Misc. Petition is to the following orders passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarh Bas: i) Order dated 31st August, 2004, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Kishangarh Bass dismissed the application of accused Dharamveer seeking exemption from personal appearance in the Court. ii) Orer dated 4th March, 2005, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Kishangarh Bass declared the accused Dharamveer absconding and ordered to draw the separate proceedings under Section 82 and 83 of CrPC and also ordered to issue standing warrant of arrest against him.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned PP appearing for the State and carefully perused the relevant material on record. Learned counsel for the petitioners canvassed that the petitioner no.2 is posted in Air Force. He being an employee of disciplinary force, is not sanctioned leave frequently by his superior authorites and thus, on account of his non appearance in the court, his counsel filed an application seeking exemption from personal appearance, but the same was dismissed arbitrarily. The order of the learned trial court with regard to declaring him absconding and issuing standing warrant of arrest is also arbitrary. Hence, both these orders need to be set-aside. Learned counsel further submitted that instead of warrant of arrest, the petitioner Dharamveer may be ordered to be summoned through a bailable warrant and if it is done so, the accused shall appear in the court immediately. E Converso, learned PP appearing for the State has defended the impugned orders and stated them to be just and proper for the simple reason that the accused Dharamveer was not appearing in the Court earlier also and he was in the habit of filing an application seeking exemption from his personal appearance. Merely for the reason that the accused Dharamveer has been posted in Air Force, his personal appearance cannot be dispensed with on all dates of hearing in the court. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and carefully perused the relevant material on record, it is noticed that the impugned order with regard to dismissing the application seeking exemption from personal appearance of the accused Dharamveer was passed by the court way back on 31st August, 2004. Thereafter a long period of seven years has passed, but the accused has still been absconding. It may be accepted that he is employed in Air Force, but can it be believed that the accused Dharamveer was not sanctioned leave even once during a long period of last seven years? Learned PP has brought to the notice of this Court that trial of the accused Dharamveer has still been pending and his trial was segregated by the learned trial court and the case of rest of the accused persons has been finally adjudicated and they have been convicted for the alleged offences, against which the appeal has been pending in the High Court. The absence of the petitioner Dharamveer has hampered the trial of the case. He has not only been absconding, but has delayed the disposal of the criminal case of rest of the accused persons also. Merely for this reason that the accused Dharamveer has been in Air Force, his personal appearance in the court cannot be dispensed with on all dates of hearing. Keeping in view the disrespectful attitude of the accused shown towards the criminal proceedings pending against him in the court of law, it cannot be said that the learned trial court committed any error in dismissing the application of the petitioner accused Dharamveer, whereby he sought exemption from his personal appearance in the court. So far as the order dated 4th March, 2005 is concerned, it is in respect of consequential proceedings drawn after forfeiture of the bail bonds of the accused in his absence. This order suggests that the learned trial court ordered to draw separate proceedings under Section 82 and 83 of CrPC and further ordered to issue standing warrant of arrest against him.
(3.) I do not find any illegality or arbitrariness in both the impugned orders. On the contrary, they are found to be perfectly just and proper, which, to my firm view, calls for no intervention. In view of above, the Criminal Misc. Petition filed under Section 482 of CrPC fails and the same being bereft of any merit deserves to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.;