JUDGMENT : Amol Rattan Singh, J. 1. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has shown from a photocopy of the zimni order passed by the trial court that when he first absented on 10.10.2017, notice was issued returnable on 10.11.2017, but the case was thereafter taken up on 09.11.2017, (as is obvious from the order of that date), the petitioner not having approached the Court at that stage and having thereafter avoided execution of warrants on three dates, eventually proclamation was ordered to be issued. 2. Consequently, at this stage, I do not consider appropriate to grant him the concession of anticipatory bail. While dismissing this petition, it is however directed that upon the petitioner surrendering before the trial court and filing a petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the trial Court would go into the issue of the dates initially having been wrongly given in the orders of 10.10.2017 and 09.11.2017, and thereafter decide his bail application on merits, very expeditiously.