SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Makhan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 1 February, 2018


Criminal Misc. No. M- 26806 of 2016 (OM)
Date of decision : February 01, 2018

Makhan Singh …..Petitioner


State of Punjab ….Respondent

Criminal Misc. No. M- 20063 of 2016 (OM)

Makhan Singh …..Petitioner


State of Punjab ….Respondent


Present: Mr. S.P. Soi, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Ms. Seena Mand, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate
for respondent No. 2 – complainant.


This order shall decide Criminal Misc. Nos. M- 26806 and

20063 of 2016.

The petitioner in Criminal Misc. No. M- 26806 of 2016

seeks the concession of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 142 dated

09.09.2013 under Sections 406, 498A IPC registered at Police Station

Shahkot, District Jalandhar.

Criminal Misc. No. M- 20063 of 2016 has been filed for

quashing of order dated 31.07.2014 declaring the petitioner to be a

proclaimed person.

1 of 2
12-02-2018 08:11:18 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 26806 of 2016 (OM) -2-

It is noted that these petitions have been pending since

June/August, 2016. It is recorded in order dated 08.09.2016 in

Criminal Misc. No. M- 26806 of 2016 that copies of the passport and

tickets have not been placed on record, however, it was stated that the

petitioner would be returning to India in March, 2017. Thereafter, the

matter was adjourned on various occasions at request of learned

counsel for the petitioner. On 10.01.2018, it was informed by learned

counsel for the petitioner that he has no instructions as to the date on

which the petitioner would return to India in February, 2018.

Today, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner shall not be able to come to India till at least April, 2018. It is

relevant to note that both these petitions are pending since the year

2016. Despite indulgence by this Court on numerous occasions, the

petitioner has not returned to India. It is apparent that bona fides on the

part of the petitioner are clearly lacking. Keeping in view the facts and

circumstances of the case, petitioner deserves no indulgence from this


Both petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.

(Lisa Gill)
February 01, 2018 Judge

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No

2 of 2
12-02-2018 08:11:20 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Copyright © 2022 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation