Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1119 (JHR)

Manoj Prasad v. State of Jharkhand

2011-12-16

P.P.BHATT

body2011
ORDER By the Court.-Heard the parties. 2. Both the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties submitted that this petition may be disposed of at the admission stage. 3. This criminal writ application has been filed for quashing of order dated 15.2.2010 passed in Complaint Case No. 1004 of 2007 including the orders dated 27.7.2010 and 23.9.2010 by reasons of which, processes under Sections 82 and 83, Cr PC have been issued against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been granted bail on 27.9.2008 and subsequently thereof, he remained present in the Court below concerned to cooperate in the criminal proceeding. But on 15.2.2010, the petitioner was not present as he was deputed in election duty being a constable of C.R.P.F. It has also been submitted that unfortunately, petitioner's counsel was not appeared on that very day and application for exemption was not filed and therefore, on 15.2.2010 the bail bond of the petitioner was cancelled and by reason of which, process under Sections 82 and 83, Cr PC has been issued against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred and relied upon the order dated 2nd September, 2011 passed in WP (Cr.) No. 26/2011 Ramchandra Sah @ Ramchandra Pd.Sahu v. State of Jharkhand, 2011 (4) JCR 349 (Jhr), in support of his submission by which, the order of cancellation of bail bonds is set aside and the trial Court is directed to be careful in future in passing order in case of absence of the accused where only order could be passed of cancellation of bail and not cancellation of bail bonds and after cancellation of bail only, the process of non-bailable warrant can be issued and notices can be given to the sureties. In this order, a direction has also been given to circulate a copy of this order to all the Judicial Magistrate in the State of Jharkhand so that they may follow the procedure properly in the matter of absence of the accused and pass appropriate order. 5. Learned counsel for the State has supported the order impugned and submitted that the Court below has no option but to pass the said order so that the trial may commence further and, therefore, there is no illegality in the order impugned. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the State has supported the order impugned and submitted that the Court below has no option but to pass the said order so that the trial may commence further and, therefore, there is no illegality in the order impugned. 6. Considering the aforesaid submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as from the perusal of the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner could not appear on 15.2.2010 as he was deputed in erection duty in the State of Manipur and no application for exemption was filed before the Court below concerned as the conducting lawyer was not present on that day. 7. In view of the above reasons, the order dated 15.2.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Daltonganj at Palamu and consequential orders dated 27.7.2010 and 23.9.2010 are set aside and the petitioner is permitted to put his appearance before the trial Court concerned on or before 6th January, 2012 and shall furnish fresh bail bonds and co-operate in the said criminal proceeding after marking his attendance before the Court below concerned as arid when directed. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. 9. Let this order be communicated to the Court below concerned through FAX at the cost of the petitioner. Petition disposed of.