IMPORTANT POINT
Accused released on bail must comply with the conditions of the bail bond, including appearing in court as directed, especially in cases involving non-bailable offences.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the order dated 19.11.2019 passed in G.R. Case No. 417 of 2014 in connection with B.S. City P.S. Case No. 93 of 2014 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro cancelled the bail bond of the petitioner.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro cancelled the bail bond of the petitioner consequent upon the petitioner - who is an accused of B.S. City P.S. Case No. 93 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 417 of 2014, not co-operating with the trial of the case; as even though four of the witnesses were present in the court, but the petitioner/accused was not present before the trial court and though a petition for representation was filed on his behalf but no one turned up to press the petition. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro rejected the petition filed with a prayer for representation by his pleader dispensing with the personal attendance of the petitioner and issued non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 19.11.2019 passed in G.R. Case No. 417 of 2014 in connection with B.S. City P.S. Case No. 93 of 2014 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, has been passed mechanically by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro and the said order is harassing and oppressive against the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Randhir Kumar Jaiswal vs. State of Jharkhand in Cr. M.P. No. 452 of 2021 dated 22.06.2021 wherein the co-ordinate Bench has observed that in the facts of that case when the representation under Section 317 of Cr.P.C. filed by the counsel for the accused was rejected and non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner, the co-ordinate Bench observed that it was incumbent upon the learned Magistrate to provide another date for appearance and on non-appearance on the next date, he may would have issued warrant but not doing so makes the order not sustainable in the eye of law. Hence, it is submitted that the order dated 19.11.2019 passed in G.R. Case No. 417 of 2014 in connection with B.S. City P.S. Case No. 93 of 2014 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro cancelled the bail bond of the petitioner, be quashed and set aside.

6. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for quashing the order dated 19.11.2019 passed in G.R. Case No. 417 of 2014 in connection with B.S. City P.S. Case No. 93 of 2014 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro and submits that there is no illegality in the order dated 19.11.2019 passed in G.R. Case No. 417 of 2014 in connection with B.S. City P.S. Case No. 93 of 2014 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro. It is next submitted that it is a settled principle of law that the bail granted to the accused do not confer unfettered right to the accused to not to appear before the court any further rather in the bail bond itself the petitioner and the sureties have undertaken that the petitioner shall remain present in court on each date to which the case would be fixed by the court. It is then submitted that; when the court directs an accused to remain physically present in the court on a specific day; the accused of the case do not have any choice not to appear before the trial court. It is further submitted that during a criminal trial involving non-bailable offences, the accused of the case is kept in judicial custody and only when the accused person prays and satisfy the court that he will