JUDGMENT

A. S. NAIDU, J. — The cardinal question which needs determination is :

“As to whether production of an accused in Court is sine qua non for releasing him on bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”

2. Before answering the said question, it would be worth¬while to have a bird’s eye view on the facts of the case.

One Manoj Kumar Singh, a resident of Bihar, was alleged to have gunned down one Harbanslal Bedi, a railway contractor, on 27th of October, 1999 at about 9.30 a.m. An FIR to that effect was lodged by the son of deceased at Bandhamunda GRPS, Rourkela on the same day. On the basis of that, GRPS Case No. 33 of 1999 was registered under Sections 302/120-B/201/34 IPC read with Section 25 of the Arms Act. The case was subsequently converted to G.R. Case No. 1736 of 1999 in the Court of the S.D.J.M., Panposh, Rourkela. In course of investigation it was prima facie revealed that said accused Manoj was a professional killer who was usually engaged by different persons on hire to kill persons as a “Supari Killer” and that he was facing as many as thirty one criminal cases including the present case. A chart to that effect was filed in Court by the State.

Accused Manoj was convicted by the Addl.Sessions Judge, Chainbasa, Bihar in S.T. No. 229 of 2000 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Against the said order of conviction and sentence, the accused preferred appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 314 of 2001 which is now subjudice in the High Court of Jharkhand.

After completion of investigation, with much difficulty, police could trace out the whereabouts of accused Manoj and ascertained that he was undergoing sentence at Chainbasa Jail. It also appeared that the High Court of Jharkhand had granted ac¬cused Manoj interim bail for treatment of his ailment at AIIMS as he was allegedly suffering from serious ailment (brain tumour) and required neuro surgery.

3. While matter stood thus, a Bail Application was filed before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Rourkela being Bail Application No. 69 of 2003 and on 25.2.2003 the Addl. Sessions Judge allowed the accused to go on interim bail of Rs. 5,00,000.00 (five lakhs) with two sureties, each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the S.D.J.M., Rourkela and also on depositing a sum of Rs. 50,000.00 in cash in the Court of the S.D.J.M., Rourkela. The said order stipulated that the accused should surrender in Court on 12.5.2003.

4. Thereafter an application was filed before this Court under Section 439 (1)(b) CrPC for modification of the conditions imposed by the Court below while granting interim bail and the said application was registered as CRLMA No. 12 of 2003. In course of hearing, however, on 12.5.2003 learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for withdrawal of the said application and accordingly the same was dismissed as withdrawn. Another petition was thereafter filed before the Addl.Sessions Judge, Rourkela by the accused stating that he was agreeable to comply with the direction issued by the said Court while releasing him on interim bail, and prayed that as the date fixed for surrender, i.e. 12.5.2003, had already expired, he should be released on bail for a period of four months from the date of his release. In the meanwhile the State filed the present CRLMC No. 1082 of 2003 challenging the order dated 25.2.2003 of the Addl.Sessions Judge, Rourkela in Bail Application No. 69 of 2003 granting interim bail to the accused. The Addl. Sessions Judge by his order dated 5.6.2003 rejected the petition of the accused praying to release him on interim bail, observing that as the State had preferred a petition for cancellation of bail granted by the said Court and the same was subjudice, it would not be expedient nor proper to release the petitioner on bail at that juncture of time and the Court should wait till orders were passed by the High Court in the Misc. Petition.

The accused has preferred BLAPL No. 4885 of 2003 with a prayer to release him