The attendance of the accused at the trial is necessary for the trial to be conducted in an expedient manner, and the trial court has no power to recall the order under Section 362 Cr.P.C.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

2. By way of present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short „Cr.P.C.?), the petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 22.07.2015, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Lakhisarai in Sessions Case No. 395 of 2014 arising out of SC/ST P.S. Case No. 174 of 2011, whereby and whereunder the petition filed under Section 317 Cr.P.C. for dispensing with the personal attendance has been rejected and the bail bonds of the petitioners have been cancelled.

3. The petitioners are named accused in the aforesaid case. On completion of investigation the police submitted charge-sheet against them. Since the case is under the provision of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. At the stage of framing of charge, the petitioners denied charges and hence the trial commenced.

4. On 22.07.2015, an application under Section 317 Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the petitioners for dispensing with their personal attendance. On that day, the prosecution filed attendance of one of its witnesses for deposition. The application filed under Section 317 Cr.P.C. was not pressed. When the learned Additional Public Prosecutor produced the witness for examination on behalf of the prosecution in the first half, neither the petitioners nor their counsel was present. The Court waited for the petitioners and their counsel. Even in the second half when the case was called out neither the petitioners nor their counsel turned up. The deposition of the witness, who was present in Court, could not be recorded due to absence of the petitioners and their counsel. Being left with no option the trial Judge rejected the application filed under Section 317 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioners and cancelled their bail bonds.

5. It would further appear from the impugned order dated 22.07.2015 that later on at about 3.45 p.m. an application was filed by the counsel for the defence expressing willingness to cross-examine the witness. It would be evident from the impugned order that after the rejection of application of the petitioners filed under Section 317 Cr.P.C. and cancellation of their bail bonds, the witness had already left the Court. A prayer was also made on behalf of the petitioners to recall the order whereby the application under Section 317 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the petitioners was rejected and bail bonds of the petitioners were cancelled. After hearing the parties, the trial Judge has held that it has no power to recall the order already passed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it was not proper for the Court to reject the application filed under Section 317 Cr.P.C. and simultaneously cancel the bail bonds of the petitioners on the same day. In this regard, he places reliance on a decision of this Court passed in Lalu Kumar Dwivedi Vs. State of Bihar [2007 (2) PLJR 572].

7. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. He submits that there is no error in the order impugned. The mere filing of an application under Section 317 Cr.P.C. in itself cannot be construed that even without pressing the same the Court is bound to allow the same. He submits that every application filed before the Court has to be pressed in an open proceeding before the Court. He submits that the reliance placed upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the decision of Lalu Kumar Dwivedi (Supra) is misconceived. According to him, in that case the trial court had accepted the representation under Section 317 Cr.P.C. and thereafter cancelled the bail bond of the accused and issued non-bailable warrants against him. In that context, a Bench of this Court has held the order to be bad.

8. I have heard respective Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. I find subs