The court emphasized that the direction for the petitioner to furnish an undertaking was against the mandate of law as there are provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code for procuring the appearance of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Gaurav, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Mahua Palit, the learned counsel for the State.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved with the part of the order dated 25.01.2020 whereby a direction has been issued by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I Simdega wherein the petitioner has been directed to furnish one undertaking before the court that he will produce the accused Sushila Xalxo immediately before the court so that the trial may start. Pursuant to certain dispute the articles of the petitioner was attached. The petitioner moved before this Court in Cr. M.P. No. 3872/2019 in which the process of proclamation dated 03.04.2019 and process of attachment dated 19.06.2019 have been quashed. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed further Vakalatnama and filed the petition to release his property before the court below on 23.01.2020. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Simdega has passed the impugned order dated 25.01.2020 and directed the petitioner to furnish one undertaking to produce the accused Sushila Xalxo. By the said order, the learned Judge has directed to release the articles in favour of the petitioner but with a rider of the same. The petitioner is not in a position to produce the accused. Under the Criminal Procedure Code, there are provisions of procuring the appearance of the accused as well as the witness and without resorting to them, the said rider has been put upon the petitioner which is against the mandate of law.

4. Accordingly, the direction issued in the order dated 25.01.2020 with regard to the furnishing of the undertaking for producing the accused Sushila Xalxo is quashed.

5. The order dated 25.01.2020 is modified to the above extent.

6. The court below is at liberty to procure the appearance of the accused Sushils Xalxo in accordance with Criminal Procedure Code and in accordance with law.

7. The instant Cr. M.P. is allowed in the above terms and disposed of.