Order : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 17.12.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in connection with Complaint case No. 716 of 2012 corresponding to T.R. No. 803 of 2016 whereby and whereunder petition filed by the petitioner u/s 317 of Cr.P.C has been cancelled, bail bond of the petitioner has been rejected, summons issued to the bailors and NBW has been issued against the petitioner in a composite order. Petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order dated 09.07.2015 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. 3. It appears from the complaint that the complainant is a publishing company and the petitioner gave orders for publication of materials in complainant's newspaper Prabhat Khabar pursuant to which the complainant published the same in its newspaper Prabhat Khabar and demanded payment of Rs. 1,76,480/- from the petitioner against the publication done for him. It is alleged that petitioner in discharge of his liability issued one cheque of ICICI Bank in favour of complainant bearing ICICI Bank cheque No. 046788 dated 12.02.2012 of Rs. 1,76,480/- which however stood dishonored by the Bank on account of the reason “Effects not cleared please present again” indicated in ICICI Bank note dated 22.02.2012 whereupon complainant immediately served registered legal notice with A/D dated 20.03.2012 on the accused/petitioner asking him to repay the above amount within 15 days. It is further alleged that the petitioner made telephone call to the complainant's Company Secretary and said he shall not pay the amount claimed by the company. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that allegation as alleged against the petitioner in the complaint is totally false and baseless. He further submits that court below without giving any opportunity to the petitioner rejected his petition and bail and non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against him without receiving the execution report of NBW and thereafter process under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C has been issued against the petitioner vide order dated 09.07.2015. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that though the petition was allowed by the same court on earlier occasion but on 17.12.2014 without giving any chance to the petitioner to appear, non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that though the petition was allowed by the same court on earlier occasion but on 17.12.2014 without giving any chance to the petitioner to appear, non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against him. He further points out that petitioner was ill from 15.12.2014 to 17.01.2015 and upon advise of the doctor he was unable to appear before the court below. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the learned Magistrate while rejecting the representation under Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cannot, at the same time, cancel the bail bond and issue non-bailable warrant of arrest, if on the preceding date, it has not clearly directed that personal attendance required under Section 317 of the Cr.P.C. had no longer dispensed with, but here in the present case, the learned trial court has passed the composite order in violation of the provisions of Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, it is submitted that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is very harsh and also against the principle of law. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate in the trial and shall remain present before the Court below as and when required and will abide by the conditions that may be imposed while granting bail and therefore, he may be allowed to continue on the same bail bond. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of Tijan Musahar @ Jitan Musahar Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2011 (3) PLJR 286 and Shaukat Ali Khan and others Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another reported 2012(2) East Cr. C. 52 (Jhr.) 5. Learned counsel for the State submitted that since the petitioner did not remain present before the Court below on the date so fixed and therefore appropriate order was passed by the Court to secure presence of the petitioner-accused person. It is further submitted that no illegality has been committed by the Court below while passing such order and the purpose of passing of such order is to secure the presence of the petitioner at the time of trial so that trial can proceed further and the purpose of granting bail may not be frustrated. 6. It is further submitted that no illegality has been committed by the Court below while passing such order and the purpose of passing of such order is to secure the presence of the petitioner at the time of trial so that trial can proceed further and the purpose of granting bail may not be frustrated. 6. Considering the aforesaid rival submissions and also on perusal of the papers, it transpires that the present petition is filed being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 17.12.2014 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Complaint case No. 716 of 2012 corresponding to T.R. No. 803 of 2016 and also the order dated 09.07.2015, I found substance in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Magistrate while rejecting the representation under Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cannot, at the same time, cancel the bail bond and issue non-bailable warrant of arrest, if on the preceding date, it has not clearly directed that personal attendance required under Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, had no longer dispensed with but here in this case, has passed the composite order, which is in contravention of the provisions contained in Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case and more particularly, in view of the fact that on earlier occasions, the petitioner has remained present before the court below and as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate in the trial and shall remain present as and when required shall remain present as and when required by the Court below during the course of trial and also in view of ratio laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Tijan Musahar @ Jitan Musahar Vs. The State of Bihar & Others, reported in 2011 (3) P.L.J.R 286, cited by the counsel for the petitioner, which covers the case of the petitioner, the order dated 17.12.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 716 of 2012 and also order dated 09.07.2015 are liable to be quashed and set aside. 7. The State of Bihar & Others, reported in 2011 (3) P.L.J.R 286, cited by the counsel for the petitioner, which covers the case of the petitioner, the order dated 17.12.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 716 of 2012 and also order dated 09.07.2015 are liable to be quashed and set aside. 7. Accordingly, the order dated 17.12.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 716 of 2012 and also order dated 09.07.2015 are hereby quashed and the petitioner is directed to cooperate in the trial and shall remain present before the court below as and when his presence is required. It is further clarified that petitioner may be allowed to continue on the same bail bond. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this criminal miscellaneous petition stands disposed of.