Ashutosh @ Santosh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.38185 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -82 Year- 1996 Thana -PUNPUN District- PATNA ====================================================== Ashutosh @ Santosh, Son of late Parmeshwar Mahto, resident of MohallaSonemai, Police Station- Dhanarua, District- Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Srivastava For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Panday(APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 20-10-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner seeks to set aside the order dated 21.05.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Patna in connection with Sessions Trial No. 1021 of 1998 under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code whereby and whereunder on account of the absence of the petitioner, the bail order passed in his favour earlier has been cancelled and non-bailable warrant has been directed to be issued against him.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner had filed a petition

under Section 317 of the Cr. P.C. for being exempted from personal appearance, learned Court below without taking into consideration of the same only because certain witnesses had appeared on the relevant date, has cancelled his bail bond and issued non-bailable warrant against him. It is further submitted that there was no consideration of his application under Section 317 Cr.P.C. and therefore, the impugned order is fit to be set aside.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and on consideration of the fact that the petitioner has been cooperating with the trial earlier and also undertakes that he shall be present on each and every date subsequent to the passing of this order, it would be appropriate in the interest of justice to permit the petitioner to appear in the court below on the next date. As such, the order impugned dated 21.05.2016 is set aside and the Court below is directed to permit the appearance of the petitioner in all future dates. However, it is made clear that if the

petitioner abstains himself from the Court and hinders the process of the trial, the Court below will be at liberty to pass further orders in accordance with law.

(Anjana Mishra, J) Jagdish/- U T