The court's decision emphasizes the importance of following the procedural requirements under Sec.317 Cr.P.C. before taking drastic actions against the accused.

1. Heard Mr. Chandra Kant, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks quashing of the part of the order dated 21.6.2005 passed by Shri Shiv Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gopalganj in Trial No. 383 of 2005 by which after accepting the petition under Sec.317 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the petitioner for his representation through counsel the case was fixed for 19.7.2005, but subsequently by a different handwriting in the said order, his bail bond was directed to be cancelled and non-bailable warrants were directed to be issued.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of averments made in the application that the trial of the case continued from 28.1.2000 to 23.3.2005 on which date the prosecution evidence was closed and on that date the petitioner was also physically present in Court and a request was made on his behalf to record his statement under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that during the period of his trial he had been represented through his counsel since he had gone to Dubai for earning his livelihood. Thereafter on 1.4.2005 the petitioner had personally appeared and request was made that his statement under Sec.313 Cr.P.C be recorded but the same was not done. In view of the said delay, after obtaining advise from his counsel, the petitioner again went to Dubai and joined his job. Again the case was fixed for 6.4.2005 and 25.4.2005 and his petition under Sec.317 Cr.P.C. for appearance through Advocate was accepted by the trial court on the ground that he has gone outside for earning livelihood. On 21.6.2005 a petition under Sec.317 Cr.P.C was filed on behalf of the petitioner and the same was earlier allowed and the case was posted for statement of the petitioner under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. on 19.7.2005. However, later on it is submitted that in a different handwriting, without rejecting his representation, the order impugned has been passed for cancelling the bail bond and issuing non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was willing to remain personally present in Court for examination under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. and only on account of his non-examination on 2 dates on the advise of his counsel he left for Dubai. Even now the petitioner is willing to appear for examination under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the court below having once accepted the application dated 21.6.2005 under Sec.317 Cr.P.C. for representation, fixing 19.7.2005 for appearance, it ought not have passed a different order cancelling the bail bond and issued non-bailable warrants of arrest subsequently without assigning any reason for the same. It is evident from the order impugned that no such reason has been assigned.

5. On a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances, this Court holds that the order dated 21.6.2005 is not in accordance with law as the court below having once accepted the representation under Sec.317 Cr.P.C. it ought to have at least waited for the next date before issuing orders cancelling the bail bond of the petitioner and issuing non-bailable warrants against him, the same having not been done the order cannot be permitted to stand. It is accordingly set aside.

6. The petitioner is directed to be personally present in the trial court on 24th January, 2007 when the trial court will either examine him under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. or fix a short date for the same on which date also the petitioner would be obliged to personally appear and he must be examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C.

7. The application is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions.

8. Let this order be communicated by fax on payment of necessary fee by the petitioner.