Yoginder Kumar Modi Vs. State (Nct of Delhi) and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - 20,000/- with one surety in like amount each to the satisfaction of concerned metropolitan magistrate. ' 317.(1) at any stage of an inquiry or trial under this code, if the judge or magistrate is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded, that the personal attendance of the accused before the court is not necessary in the interests of justice, or that the accused persistently disturbs the proceedings in court, the judge or magistrate may, if the accused is represented by a pleader, dispense with his attendance and proceed with such inquiry or trial in his absence, and may, at any subsequent stage of the proceedings direct the personal attendance of such accused.k.s. gupta, j. 1. in this batch of petitions filed by yoginder kumar modi, challenge is to a part of identical order dated 17th march, 2001 passed by a metropolitan magistrate whereby condition was imposed on him (petitioner) not to leave the country without the permission of court.2. persons arrayed as respondent no. 2 in these petitions are the complainants who have filed separate complaints based on different fdrs under sections 403/ 406/ 409/ 417 and (sic.), ipc against the petitioner and three others. it is not in dispute that in all 7 complaints the petitioner was admitted to bail by an additional sessions judge, new delhi by a common order dated 17th march, 2001 on furnishing personal bond in the sum of rs. 20,000/- with one surety in like amount each to the satisfaction of concerned metropolitan magistrate. during the course of argument copy of said bail order has also been placed on the file. short submission advanced by mr. siddarth luthra for petitioner was that petitioner was admitted to bail without imposition of any condition by the said order dated 17th march, 2001 and while exempting personal appearance of the petitioner through counsel on the application(s) filed by him, the condition that he would not leave country without the permission of court could not have been legally imposed by the order dated 17th march, 2001 by the metropolitan magistrate seized of the complaints. to appreciate the submission, provisions contained in sections 205 and 307, cr.p.c. need to be reproduced: '205.(1) whenever a magistrate issues a summons, he may, if he sees reason so to do, dispense with the personal attendance of the accused and permit him to appear by his pleader. (2) but the magistrate inquiring into or trying the case may, in his discretion, at any stage of the proceedings, direct the personal attendance of the accused, and, if necessary, enforce such attendance in the manner hereinbefore provided.' '317.(1) at any stage of an inquiry or trial under this code, if the judge or magistrate is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded, that the personal attendance of the accused before the court is not necessary in the interests of justice, or that the accused persistently disturbs the proceedings in court, the judge or magistrate may, if the accused is represented by a pleader, dispense with his attendance and proceed with such inquiry or trial in his absence, and may, at any subsequent stage of the proceedings direct the personal attendance of such accused. (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 adjourn such inquiry or trial, or order that the case of such accused be taken up or tried separately'. 3. bare reading of said sections would make it clear that if the trial court dispenses with the attendance of accused during enquiry or trial, it can only direct the personal attendance of such an accused at any subsequent stage of proceedings and cannot impose any condition as part of the order dispensing with the attendance. bail order dated 17th march, 2001 would reveal that petitioner was admitted to bail without imposition of any condition whatsoever. thus, part of aforesaid order dated 17th march, 2001 that petitioner will not leave the country without the permission of court deserves to be set aside being contrary to said bail order and both the said sections.4. consequently, while allowing aforementioned petitions, part of said order dated 17th march, 2001 whereby petitioner was directed not to leave the country without the permission of concerned metropolitan magistrate, is set aside.