JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the order dated 19.11.2019 passed in G.R. Case No. 417 of 2014 in connection with B.S. City P.S. Case No. 93 of 2014 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro cancelled the bail bond of the petitioner. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro cancelled the bail bond of the petitioner consequent upon the petitioner - who is an accused of B.S. City P.S. Case No. 93 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 417 of 2014, not co-operating with the trial of the case; as even though four of the witnesses were present in the court, but the petitioner/accused was not present before the trial court and though a petition for representation was filed on his behalf but no one turned up to press the petition. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro rejected the petition filed with a prayer for representation by his pleader dispensing with the personal attendance of the petitioner and issued non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 19.11.2019 passed in G.R. Case No. 417 of 2014 in connection with B.S. City P.S. Case No. 93 of 2014 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, has been passed mechanically by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro and the said order is harassing and oppressive against the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Randhir Kumar Jaiswal vs. State of Jharkhand in Cr. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Randhir Kumar Jaiswal vs. State of Jharkhand in Cr. M.P. No. 452 of 2021 dated 22.06.2021 wherein the co-ordinate Bench has observed that in the facts of that case when the representation under Section 317 of Cr.P.C. filed by the counsel for the accused was rejected and non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner, the co-ordinate Bench observed that it was incumbent upon the learned Magistrate to provide another date for appearance and on non-appearance on the next date, he may would have issued warrant but not doing so makes the order not sustainable in the eye of law. Hence, it is submitted that the order dated 19.11.2019 passed in G.R. Case No. 417 of 2014 in connection with B.S. City P.S. Case No. 93 of 2014 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro cancelled the bail bond of the petitioner, be quashed and set aside. 6. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for quashing the order dated 19.11.2019 passed in G.R. Case No. 417 of 2014 in connection with B.S. City P.S. Case No. 93 of 2014 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro and submits that there is no illegality in the order dated 19.11.2019 passed in G.R. Case No. 417 of 2014 in connection with B.S. City P.S. Case No. 93 of 2014 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro. It is next submitted that it is a settled principle of law that the bail granted to the accused do not confer unfettered right to the accused to not to appear before the court any further rather in the bail bond itself the petitioner and the sureties have undertaken that the petitioner shall remain present in court on each date to which the case would be fixed by the court. It is then submitted that; when the court directs an accused to remain physically present in the court on a specific day; the accused of the case do not have any choice not to appear before the trial court. It is then submitted that; when the court directs an accused to remain physically present in the court on a specific day; the accused of the case do not have any choice not to appear before the trial court. It is further submitted that during a criminal trial involving non-bailable offences, the accused of the case is kept in judicial custody and only when the accused person prays and satisfy the court that he will remain present in the court in future dates to which the case would be fixed and co-operate with the trial; the court allows the accused to remain on bail. It is next submitted that therefore, the bail entails with it the liability of the accused to remain present in court on each of the dates, to which the case is fixed. Hence, an accused in bail cannot take the liberty not to remain present in on the date fixed, without the permission of the court and if the accused is unable to remain present in the court on the date fixed by his own arrangement, he has the choice of remaining in jail in judicial custody. Then it will be upon the court to ensure his presence before it as and when desired by the court. It is also submitted that here, in this case, the petitioner wants to have cake and eat it too. He wants to remain on bail but wants the liberty not to appear before the court as per his sweet will on the date fixed by the court, ignoring the direction of the court to remain physically present in court; which is not permissible in law. It is then submitted that as; in spite of specific direction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to remain physically present before it on a specific date, the petitioner still did not obey his order, so, certainly the petitioner has violated the conditions of the bail bond furnished by him; in which he undertook to remain present in the court on each date to which the case is fixed and the violation of the same without any plausible reason, is unpardonable. More so, when there is specific direction of the court that the petitioner has to remain present in the court. Hence, it is submitted that no illegality has been committed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in cancelling the bail of the petitioner. More so, when there is specific direction of the court that the petitioner has to remain present in the court. Hence, it is submitted that no illegality has been committed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in cancelling the bail of the petitioner. It is lastly submitted that there is absolutely no illegality in the order dated 19.11.2019 passed in G.R. Case No. 417 of 2014 in connection with B.S. City P.S. Case No. 93 of 2014 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr. M.P. being without any merit, be dismissed. 7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that when an accused of a criminal case who is released on bail has no choice for not appearing before the court which grants him bail as per his sweet will, without the permission of the court, and which the trial is going on. When an accused is produced before the court in a criminal case involving non-bailable offences, the accused is first remanded to judicial custody by the court. After such a demand to judicial custody, the accused may prayer for being released on bail and if the court which is remands the accused to judicial custody; or any other court empowered under section 437 or 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is satisfied that the accused will remain present in the court, in which his case is pending, and other attending considerations; on the prayer of the accused, releases the accused on bail. After an accused is granted bail as such; by the order of the court, the accused furnishes a bail bond and in the bail bond the accused undertakes that he will appear before the court on each of the dates to which the case would be fixed in future. So, ordinarily the accused in expected to remain present in court on each of the dates to which the case is fixed. Of course, there is provision inter alia in Section 317 of the Cr.P.C. where the court can dispense with the personal attendance of the accused and proceed with such enquiry or trial in absence of the accused, if he is represented by his pleader. Of course, there is provision inter alia in Section 317 of the Cr.P.C. where the court can dispense with the personal attendance of the accused and proceed with such enquiry or trial in absence of the accused, if he is represented by his pleader. But when the accused who is on bail is directed specifically to remain present on a particular day by the court then the accused has to appear in the court because; otherwise if the accused is unable to present himself before the court by his own personal arrangement; when the date of the case is fixed; he has the choice to remain in judicial custody and face the trial and to ensure his production before the trial court will be the responsibility of the court concerned; by passing appropriate orders and giving necessary direction to the agencies concerned. Under such circumstances, as in spite of specific direction of the trial court; the petitioner who was the accused of B. S. City P.S. Case No. 93 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. No. 417 of 2014 did not appear before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro and unlike the facts of the case of Randhir Kumar Jaiswal vs. State of Jharkhand (supra), though a petition under section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed but no one come forward to move the same and though 4 of the witnesses of the prosecution were present, yet they could not be examined and have to be returned, this Court do no find any illegality in the order dated 19.11.2019 passed in G.R. Case No. 417 of 2014 in connection with B.S. City P.S. Case No. 93 of 2014 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro. 8. A criminal trial cannot take place in the absence of the accused person. It is common knowledge that an accused person of the case, if he knows that his conviction is imminent because the witnesses will support the case of prosecution; resorts to all kinds of tactics to delay the trial and to harass the witnesses by making them to come to the court again and again for recording of their evidence. It is common knowledge that an accused person of the case, if he knows that his conviction is imminent because the witnesses will support the case of prosecution; resorts to all kinds of tactics to delay the trial and to harass the witnesses by making them to come to the court again and again for recording of their evidence. There is no express provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure that if the court rejects the prayer of the accused person of the case, to dispense with his personal appearance, and permit him to be represented by pleader; the bail granted to the accused cannot be immediately cancelled. The legislature, in its wisdom having not, put such embargo on the court, certainly by way of a legal fiction such an embargo cannot be put upon the court. As if such an embargo is put on court not to cancel the bail immediately, if the accused person do not turn up before it, even if the witnesses of the prosecution are present, the accused person, will deliberately avoid appearing in the court as and when the prosecution witnesses turn up; to harass them by coming to court again and again; as an absence of the accused or his pleader in case the personal appearance of the accused is dispensed with, examination of the witnesses cannot take place and the trial of the case will be a never-ending one and will result in paralysing the criminal justice system. 9. Accordingly, there being no justifiable reason to allow the prayer to quash the order dated 19.11.2019 passed in G.R. Case No. 417 of 2014 in connection with B.S. City P.S. Case No. 93 of 2014 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro cancelled the bail bond of the petitioner, the said the prayer is rejected. 10. Accordingly, this Cr. M.P. being without any merit, is dismissed.