Back
2018 Supreme(Pat) 1191
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, J.
Jai Prakash Lal - Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 50405 of 2017
Decided On : 12-07-2018
For the Petitioners:Mukesh Kumar No. 1, Advocate
For the Respondents: Chandrasen Prasad Singh, APP.
The court has the discretion to grant an opportunity for the petitioner to appear before the court and furnish a fresh bail bond, based on the petitioner's undertaking to appear before the court on any date fixed by the court.
Headnote:
Bail Cancellation - Criminal Procedure - The court granted the petitioner an opportunity to appear before the court and furnish a fresh bail bond, emphasizing the petitioner's undertaking to appear before the court on any date fixed by the court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's bail bond was cancelled after he failed to appear in person on the date specified by the court, following his arrest in a case involving Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the petitioner to appear before the jurisdictional Magistrate on a specified date and granted an opportunity to furnish a fresh bail bond, emphasizing the petitioner's undertaking to appear before the court on any date fixed by the court.
Issues: Bail bond cancellation, non-appearance of the petitioner, application under section 317 of the Cr.P.C., 1973.
Ratio Decidendi: The court deemed it fit and proper to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to appear before the court and furnish a fresh bail bond, emphasizing the petitioner's undertaking to appear before the court on any date fixed by the court.
Final Decision: The petitioner was directed to appear before the jurisdictional Magistrate on a specified date, and in case of appearance, he would be released on bail on furnishing a fresh bail bond. Failure to appear would result in coercive steps to secure his attendance and possible cancellation of the bail bond.
ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
2. This application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the order dated 11.09.2017 passed by the learned A.C.J.M.,-4th, Gaya in Muffasil P.S. Case No.523 of 2013 whereby and where under the bail bond of the petitioner has been cancelled.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the instant case in which cognizance has been taken under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the petitioner was arrested and was remanded to judicial custody. He was granted bail vide order dated 28.01.2014 passed by this Court in Cr. Misc. No.313 of 2014. Thereafter, he filed an application for quashing of the order taking cognizance before this Court vide Cr. Misc. No. 11980 of 2014, which was initially sent to Mediation Center of the Patna High Court and the further proceedings in the court below was ordered to be stayed, but ultimately, the mediation failed and the application preferred under section 482 of the Cr. P.C., 1973 was dismissed vide order dated 24.07.2017. The order dated 24.07.2017 passed by this Court was received in the court of jurisdictional Magistrate on 16.08.2017 and, thereafter, on 26.08.2017, the case was fixed for framing of charge on 01.09.2017. On 01.09.2017, the application filed on behalf of the petitioner for dispensing with his personal appearance and allowing him to be represented through lawyer was accepted and he was directed to be physically present on 11.09.2017. However, as the petitioner was failed to appear in person on 11.09.2017, his application preferred under section 317 of the Cr. P.C., 1973 was rejected and simultaneously his bail bond was also cancelled.
4. He submitted that non-appearance of the petitioner on 11.09.2017 was neither deliberate nor willful. Since there were compelling reasons and unavoidable circumstances, the petitioner failed to appear on that particular date. He submitted that the petitioner is a law abiding citizen and is ready to appear on any date which this Court would fix.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has opposed the application preferred by the petitioner. He submitted that there is no error in the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate. Since the petitioner failed to appear on the date of framing of charge, the trial court has rightly rejected his application preferred under section 317 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 and cancelled his bail bond.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record.
7. Without going into technicalities of the legal position, since the petitioner has undertaken before this Court that he would be appearing before the court on any date which this Court would fix, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it fit and proper to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to appear before the court and furnish fresh bail bond.
8. In that view of the matter, I direct the petitioner to appear before the jurisdictional Magistrate on 16th July, 2018. In case, the petitioner appears on 16th July, 2018, the Jurisdictional Magistrate shall release him on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 5,000- (rupees five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount to his own satisfaction in Muffasil P.S. Case No. 523 of 2013. In case, he fails to appear on 16th July, 2018, the learned Magistrate shall take all coercive steps in order to secure his attendance. The petitioner shall also be required to be present in person before the court on the date of framing of charges, which would be fixed by the learned Magistrate. In case, he fails to appear in person on the next date fixed for framing of charge, it would be open to the court below to cancel his bail bond.
9. Let the order be communicated to the court below forthwith.
