Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 596 (JHR)

Gunjan Kumar Yadav v. State of Jharkhand

2014-05-06

R.R.PRASAD

body2014
ORDER This application is directed against the order dated 5.9.2013 passed in Sessions Case No. 313 of 2007 by Additional Sessions Judge-III, Dumka, whereby and whereunder, an application, filed under Section 317 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner, was rejected after cancelling his bail and then the warrant of arrest was ordered to be issued against him. 2. Mr. K.P. Deo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was granted bail in the case. On the date fixed i.e. on 5.9.2013, an application under Section 317 Cr.P.C. was filed for allowing the petitioner to be represented through his lawyer, as the petitioner on account of unavoidable circumstance was not in a position to attend the court but that application was rejected vide order dated 5.9.2013 though in terms of the provisions, as contained in Section 317(2) Cr.P.C., the court should have given one more opportunity to the petitioner to appear but instead of resorting to that provision, the court has passed the impugned order which is quite illegal and therefore, the order is fit to be set aside. 3. Learned counsel in this regard has referred to a decision rendered in a case of Tarapado Ghosh Vs. State of Jharkhand {2009(2) East Cr. C. 567 (Jhr)}. 4. For better appreciation of the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner, Section 317(2) Cr.P.C. reads as follows:- “317(2). If the accused in any such case is not represented by a Pleader, or if the Judge or Magistrate considers his personal attendance necessary, he may, if he thinks fit and for reasons to be recorded by him, either adjourns such inquiry or trial, order that the case of such accused be taken up or tried separately.” 5. On reading the said provision, one would find that if the accused is not present on the date fixed, whose presence, according to the court, is necessary, the court may adjourn the case for his personal appearance. But here in the instant case, the court without adjourning the case for his personal appearance cancelled the bail bond and passed an order for issuance of warrant of arrest. 6. Thus, the impugned order never appears to have been passed in consonance of the provisions, as contained in Section 317 Cr.P.C. and, hence, the order dated 5.9.2013 passed in Sessions Case No. 313 of 2007, is hereby quashed. 7. 6. Thus, the impugned order never appears to have been passed in consonance of the provisions, as contained in Section 317 Cr.P.C. and, hence, the order dated 5.9.2013 passed in Sessions Case No. 313 of 2007, is hereby quashed. 7. The petitioner is directed to put his appearance before the court below within three weeks from today. 8. With the aforesaid direction, this application stands disposed of. 9. Let this order be communicated through FAX at the cost of the petitioner.