The distinction between bail jurisdiction and revisional jurisdiction under the Criminal Procedure Code, and the requirement for a petitioner to surrender before seeking to recall NBWs.

As the issue involved is connected in both the revisions, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The ACB of CBI, Chennai is prosecuting the petitioner/A1 in C.C.Nos.6 and 5 of 2016 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai for his alleged commission of certain offences.

3. The case has reached the stage of conducting of further proceedings under Sections 239-240 Cr.P.C. He was on bail. He has executed surety bonds. Subsequently, he vanished into their air. So also his partner in crime/A2. In order to achieve progress in the trial of the case enforcing their attendance, the trial Court issued NBWs as against A1 and A2. As against the petitioner/A1, NBW has been issued on 05.03.2016.

4. A2 surrendered before the trial Court hoping to return home, but he was sent to a different home/prison as he was remanded to judicial custody. Thereafter, after a great deal of legal battle, A2 came out on bail.

5. Resultantly A1 got frightened. So, he do not want to follow the suit of his partner. He sought for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., apprehending arrest under NBW. But in his more, he did not succeed. Thereafter, he filed Cr.M.P.No.918 of 2016 in C.C.No.6 of 2014 and Cr.M.P.No.924 of 2016 in C.C.No.5 of 2014 banking on some decisions, some of which have been authored by me, to recall of NBWs under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. without his physical/actual appearance before the Trial Court. By its impugned order, the trial Court distinguished his case from the case of the persons covered in the decided cases and thus dismissed his recall petitions. That is how, he is before us under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C.

6. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, in view of certain reasons beyond his control and fear of NBW, he could not surrender. However, it is not that he has no intention to participate in the trial proceedings. He may be given an opportunity to defend himself in the Court and he has also engaged a counsel to defend him.

7. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor, C.B.I. Cases, submitted that the petitioner was elusive. He is duty bound to participate in the proceedings. However, he did not. In the circumstances, the trial Court has issued N.B.Ws. The petitioner has forgotten the CBI case, but not the Court.

8. The learned Special Public Prosecutor further submitted that the trial Court practically goaded the prosecution agency to secure him and also called for status report. When the CBI went in execution of NBW, it is starling that in the address given at the time of executing the bail bond, the petitioner is not available. He has closed his company. Further, one of his surety also vacated from his address. In the circumstances, he is duty bound to furnish his present address to the Court.

9. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the plea for giving an opportunity to the petitioner and submitted that solvent surety would be produced and his wife is ready to offer bail bond, so also his close friend Karnan.

10. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the impugned order and also the materials on record.

11. Unless further proceedings are conducted under Section 239-240 Cr.P.C., the criminal case will not go to the next stage of the trial. Now, it could not be proceeded with because of the abscondense of the petitioner. In the instant case, the petitioner is already on bail. As on date it was not cancelled nor his bail bond was forfeited. But yet he is bound to appear before the trial Court for hearings and participate in the trial Court proceedings. However, he was elusive and became an absconding accused. The trial Court was left with no option except to issue NBWs and the trial Court is right in asking the prosecution to execute NBW.

12. In this backdrop of the matter, after failing before the Court in getting anticipatory bail, he has come before this Court challenging the order of the trial Court pa