Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1105 (JHR)

Shibu Soren (I) v. State Of Jharkhand

2004-12-09

R.K.MERATHIA

body2004
ORDER R.K. Merathia, J. 1. Heard the parties. These two similar, Interlocutory applications [A No. 1583 of 2004 filed in B.A. No. 4640 of 2004 and IA No. 1584 of 2004 filed in B.A. No. 4685 of 2004 are taken up together and are being disposed off by this common order. 2. These Interlocutory applications have been filed on behalf of the petitioner for modifying the condition a of the order granting him bail passed on 3.9.2004, which reads as follows :- "(a) Unless exempted by an order of the Court for valid reasons to be recorded in writing, the Petitioner shall, on each and every date fixed by the Court, be personally present." 3. Mr. R.K. Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that petitioner may be granted exemption from being personally present on each and every date fixed by the learned trial Court and he may be allowed to be present through his counsel as envisaged under Section 317, Cr PC. He referred to the grounds taken in the Interlocutory applications. He submitted that if a petition for exemption filed under Section 317, Cr PC is rejected, coercive steps may be taken against the petitioner on that very day. Therefore, he submitted that if such prayer is rejected, the trial Court should fix the case on the next date for personal appearance of the petitioner, and if on the next date so fixed he does not appear personally, coercive steps may be taken. Mr. Jain further submitted that in terms of the judgment reported in 2001 (7) SCC 401 , Bhaskar Industries Ltd. etc. he gives undertaking on behalf of the petitioner (i) that the petitioner would not dispute his identity as the particular accused in the case, (ii) that the counsel, on his behalf would be present in Court, (iii) that he has no objection in taking evidence in his absence, (iv) and that if counsel for the petitioner does not appear on the date fixed in the case or does not cooperate in the proceedings; coercive steps may be taken against the petitioner, on the next date. He further submitted that the petitioner will fully cooperate in early disposal of the trials in question. 4. He further submitted that the petitioner will fully cooperate in early disposal of the trials in question. 4. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the petitioner has been delaying the trials of these cases for about 30 years on some pretext or other and if he is granted exemption, there will be further delay. He submitted that it is in the interest of all concerned, that the trial in question is concluded at an early date. However, learned State counsel fairly submitted that if the petitioner gives the aforesaid undertaking; the trial Court may consider his prayer for exemption from personal appearance on a particular date fixed in the case. 5. After hearing the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, in my opinion, clause a sought to be modified, is in tune with the provisions of Section 317, Cr PC. The trial Court, who is in seisin of the matter, is in a better position to ascertain when the exemption from personal appearance be granted and when it should not be granted to the petitioner. However, on recording the aforesaid undertakings given by Mr. Jain on behalf of the petitioner, the following order is being passed clarifying condition a :- (1) Petitioner may file petition under Section 317, Cr PC before the trial Court on the date fixed. (2) If the trial Court finds that petitioner should personally appear, next date will be fixed for personal appearance, on which date, if he does not appear, the trial Court will be justified in taking coercive steps against him. (3) If the trial Court thinks that petitioner may be exempted from personal appearance he may pass orders to that effect. In such a situation, the following undertakings will be deemed to have been incorporated in the order of exemption :- (i) that the petitioner would not dispute his identity as the particular accused in the case, (ii) that the counsel, on his behalf, would be present in Court, (iii) that he has no objection in taking evidence in his absence, (iv) that if counsel for the petitioner does not appear on the date fixed in the case or does not cooperate in the proceedings; coercive steps may be taken against the petitioner, on the next date and, (v) that the petitioner will fully cooperate in early disposal of the trials in question. 6. 6. With these observations and directions, both the Interlocutory application are disposed off.