Repeated negligence and non-compliance with court orders may lead to the dismissal of a petition for anticipatory bail. The legal principle established in the judgment of Manish Jain v. Haryana State Pollution Control Board, 2022(1) SCC(Cri) 676, regarding the maintainability of anticipatory bail when a person released on bail is required to come back to custody for specified reasons.

NAMIT KUMAR, J.

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in complaint case No.COMA-9637 of 2018 dated 16.07.2018 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘the Act’) registered at Police Station Salem Tabri, Ludhiana, filed by respondent No.2, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana.

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner along with other co-accused is facing trial in a complaint case filed by respondent No.2 under Section 138 of the Act, in which he was granted bail by the trial Court. During the course of trial, petitioner absented himself and nonbailable warrants were issued against him. Thereafter petitioner along with other co-accused approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, seeking anticipatory bail. The said application was disposed of by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide order dated 07.12.2022 with liberty to the petitioner to surrender before the trial Court within 15 days and move an application for grant of regular bail and the application, if any, moved by the petitioner was directed to be decided on the same day by the trial Court observing that in case the trial Court did not intend to grant bail, then interim bail for a period of 15 days should be granted. Despite passing of aforesaid order, petitioner did not surrender before the trial Court and moved another application seeking anticipatory bail, which has been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide order dated 10.03.2023. Hence, this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner could not surrender before the trial Court within stipulated time as he was unaware of the conditions laid down in order dated 07.12.2022 on account of communication gap between the petitioner and his counsel due to petitioner’s ill health. He further submitted that co-accused of the petitioner have been granted anticipatory bail. He further submitted that petitioner is ready and willing to appear/surrender before the trial Court. Therefore, he may be granted concession of anticipatory bail.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel, on receipt of advance copy of the petition, has vehemently opposed the prayer made in the petition by submitting that petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail as he has failed to comply with the order dated 07.12.2022, passed by the Court below, and therefore, his anticipatory bail has rightly been rejected vide order dated 10.03.2023.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Admittedly, the petitioner was granted bail by the trial Court in complaint case. However, he absented himself during the course of trial, therefore, his bail was cancelled and non-bailable warrants were issued against him. Thereafter, petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, seeking anticipatory bail. Petitioner was granted 15 days’ time to surrender before the trial Court and move an application seeking regular bail by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide order dated 07.12.2022. Despite passing of said order, petitioner did not appear before the trial Court in negligent manner and fresh non-bailable warrants were issued against him. Thereafter, petitioner and his coaccused again filed application seeking anticipatory bail, which has been dismissed qua petitioner and allowed qua co-accused by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide order dated 10.03.2023 by observing as under: -

“5. After considering the rival submissions, this court is of the opinion that actually accused does not deserve any concession of anticipatory bail. It emerged out that applicants-accused are largely taking the court proceedings very casually. This court exercised favorable bail jurisdiction in the earlier anticipatory bail application a