Samiul Haque Alias Budnu Vs. the State of Jharkhand - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....to above, i do find substance in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. 04/12/2010, was the first date on which the applicationundersection317cr.p.c.,seemstohavebeenfiledonbehalfof thepetitioner.ifthecourtwantedappearanceofthispetitioner,heshould havegivenanotheropportunitydirectinghimtoappearonthenextdate andifonthenextdatethepetitionerwouldhaveabsentedhimselfthenthe courtwouldhaverightincancellingthebailbondbut,hereintheinstant case on the very first day of filing of the application under section 317 cr.p.c.,thecourthaspassedtheimpugnedorder,which,inthefactsand circumstances, does not appear to be legal. accordingly, the impugned orderdated04/12/2010,isherebyquashed. intheresult,thisapplicationstandsallowed. (r.r.prasad,j) mukund/cp.3

Judgment:

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI Cr.M.P.No.59of2013 SamiulHaque@Budnu................ Petitioner Versus StateofJharkhand Opp.Party Coram: HonbleMr.JusticeR.R.Prasad ForthePetitioner :Mr.P.P.N.Roy,Sr.Advocate FortheState :Mr.APP ....... 2./15.04.2013 Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though this application has been filed for quashing of the entirecriminalprosecutionincludingtheorderdated04/10/2005,taking cognizanceoftheoffencesallegedandalsotheorder dated04/12/2010, wherebyandwhereunder,theCourt,havingrejectedtheapplicationfiledby thepetitionerunderSection317oftheCr.P.C.,cancelledthebailbondand passedanorderforissuanceofthewarrantofarrest(nonbailable)against the petitioner, but the petitioner does not want to press the prayer for quashingoftheorderdated04/10/2005,takingcognizanceratherwould confinehisprayerforquashingoftheorderdated04/12/2010. Mr. Roy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitionersubmitsthatthepetitionerwasgrantedbailon21/09/2010and whilegrantingbailhewasdirectedtoappearphysicallyonthenextdate. Thenextdatewasfixed04/12/2010,onwhichdate,anapplicationunder Section317Cr.P.C.wasfilednotonlyonbehalfofthepetitionerbutalso on behalf of other accused persons, but the representation filed under Section317Cr.P.C.wasnotacceptedincaseofthepetitionerforthereason thathehadearlierbeendirectedtoremainphysicallypresentintheCourt and,thereby,theCourtbelowhascommittedillegalityinpassingtheorder dated04/12/2010,inviewofthedecisionrenderedinacaseofSandeep KumarTekriwalversusStateofBiharandOthers,[2009(1)EastCr. Case233(Patna)] andalsoinacaseof SurajChettryversusStateof Jharkhad&Another,(Cr.M.P.No.1353of2012)whereinithasbeen heldthatbeforecancellingthebailbond,thepetitionershouldhavebeen directed on an application, filed under Section 317 Cr.P.C., to remain physically present on the next date and only on the next date if the petitionerfailstoputhisappearancephysically,theCourtcouldhaveright in cancelling the bail bond and for issuance of warrant of arrest (non bailable).Hereintheinstancecase,04/12/2010wasthefirstdatewhenan applicationunderSection317Cr.P.C.,wasfiledand,therefore,theCourt shouldhavegivenanotherdateforappearanceofthepetitionerifhehad notappearedon04/12/2010,buttheCourton04/12/2010itselfcancelled thebailbondandissuedwarrantofarrest(nonbailable). Keeping in view the ratio laid down in the cases referred to above, I do find substance in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. 04/12/2010, was the first date on which the applicationunderSection317Cr.P.C.,seemstohavebeenfiledonbehalfof thepetitioner.IftheCourtwantedappearanceofthispetitioner,heshould havegivenanotheropportunitydirectinghimtoappearonthenextdate andifonthenextdatethepetitionerwouldhaveabsentedhimselfthenthe Courtwouldhaverightincancellingthebailbondbut,hereintheinstant case on the very first day of filing of the application under Section 317 Cr.P.C.,theCourthaspassedtheimpugnedorder,which,inthefactsand circumstances, does not appear to be legal. Accordingly, the impugned orderdated04/12/2010,isherebyquashed. Intheresult,thisapplicationstandsallowed. (R.R.Prasad,J) Mukund/cp.3