Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Syed Arshad Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, the learned A.P. P. for the State but no one appears for Opposite Party No. 2 although vakalatnama has been filed on his behalf. 2. The petitioner who is one of the accused in Sessions Trial No. 388 of 1996 pending before the Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No. I, Muzaffarpur is aggrieved by order dated 16.12.2005 whereby his prayer/petition under Sec.205 Cr.P.C. for dispensation with personal attendance has been rejected. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner who faces charges under Sections 307, 302 and other allied Sections of the Penal Code that the petitioner who was in Government Service as Police Sub-Inspector sought voluntarily retirement from service as he was suffering from several diseases including acute pancreatitis and could not do justice to his duty and at present was not in a position to attend the court and his life was being sustained by emergency medicines. It is also submitted that in the instant case all the other accused had been granted bail but a non-bailable warrant and processes under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. had been executed against him. 4. The medical prescriptions of the petitioner which run into several pages and have been annexed with the petition disclose that the petitioner was a chronic alcohalic and consumed country liquor and English liquor in large volumes. He also had a history of jaundice in 1994 and the latest prescription dated 9.9.2005 shows that he is weak, suffers from weight loss, irregular fever and intermittent pain in abdomen and he has been advised to stop alcohal and to take rest at home. 5. The impugned order of the Sessions Court dated 16.12.2005 is well reasoned and it appears that the petitioner has been evading arrest since 1994 notwithstanding issuance of non-bailable warrant and processes under Sections 82 and 83 of th.e Cr.P.C. and on consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Sessions Judge was not in a position to allow his petition under Sec.205 Cr.P.C. 6. I perused the medical prescriptions and the impugned order and I do not find any illegality in the impugned order which has detailed cogent reasons for rejecting a petition under Sec.205 Cr.P.C. 7. I perused the medical prescriptions and the impugned order and I do not find any illegality in the impugned order which has detailed cogent reasons for rejecting a petition under Sec.205 Cr.P.C. 7. Due regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in the application which is accordingly dismissed.