JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has faced the trial in three cases and in all three cases he remind absent sometime in the year 1987 and thereafter he did not appear in those cases. He moved applications for grant of anticipatory bail before the Additional Sessions Judge, Karauli and his applications were rejected in October, 1991. Thereafter he has moved these three applications for grant of anticipatory bail in the three cases and all three of them are disposed by this order. 2. At the very outset it may be stated that the learned counsel for the petitioner has not given any reason as to why the petitioner remained absent in the cases pending against him. It is contended that the cases against him are due to political reasons and as one M.L.A. is against him and he being Sarpanch, he has political rivalory with him. It has been stated that the petitioner had an apprehension that because of political rivalry he would not be granted bail, therefore he did not appear before the trial court after remaining absent for some days. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Bhagirath and anr. v. State of Rajasthan and ors. 1988(2) R.L.R. 773 , to support his contention that even in case where the accused has remained absconding, he can be released on anticipatery bail. 3. The applications have been opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. I have considered the contentions raised on behalf of both the sides. The petitioner in these cases did not move before the trial court for the cancellation of the warrants which were issued under sections 70 Cr. P.C. He applied for anticipatory bail before the Addl. Sessions Judge and that too after four years on remaining absent before the trial court. It is apparent that he has been obstructing the administration of Justice for a very long time. He claims to be a Sarpanch which is a responsible post, but still he is not realising his responsibility. It is a matter of shame that for any reason, either proper or improper, he has deliberately avoided appearing before the courts. Whether the cases are false or not cannot be decided on his own saying and would be decided only when the Magistrate looks into the evidence when it is completed. It is a matter of shame that for any reason, either proper or improper, he has deliberately avoided appearing before the courts. Whether the cases are false or not cannot be decided on his own saying and would be decided only when the Magistrate looks into the evidence when it is completed. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner also does not assist him. In this case the petitioner remained absent on one day on account of Teeka Ceremony in their family and on that very day their counsel also did not appear. Thereafter there was lawyers strike and they did not move the application immediately. In this case it has been observed that the accused is not entitled as of right to be released on bail on execution of fresh personal or surety bond, when a warrant of arrest has been issued under Section 70(2) Cr. P.C. This court emphasises that the circumstances and the reasons for remaining absent are relevant for purposes of deciding as to whether the warrants issued against him is bailable or non-bailable. In the present case there are no reasons whatsoever for the petitioner not appearing before the trial court and in such circumstances the petitioner does not deserve to be granted anticipatery bail. 5. It may also be mentioned that the petitioner claims that he contested election for the post of Sarpanch and was discharging his functions as such, but inspite of this the police authorities did not execute the warrant which was issued for his production before the Court of the Magistrate. It is for the higher authorities in the police department to check this delay and avoid this state of affairs. A copy of the order be sent to the S.P. Sawai Madhopur. The bail applications are dismissed. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the concerned Courts.Bail application rejected. *******