JUDGMENT :

Samit Gopal, J.

1. List revised.

2. Heard Ms. Mamta Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Amit Daga, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2 and Mr. B.B. Upadhyay learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

3. The name of Mr. Amit Daga, Advocate is printed in the cause-list as the learned counsel for opposite party No.2. His Vakalatnama is not on record which he states to have filed in the office on 16.01.2023. The office is directed to trace out the same and place it on record and make a note in the order sheet about it.

4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant states that due to inadvertence, an order dated 19.11.2022 which was to be filed as Annexure 8 to the affidavit has been wrongly filed as the same should have been the order of the said date passed in Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 18472 / 2022 (Shyam Babu Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & another).

5. Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 has produced before the court three orders which are taken on order and are :

(i) Order dated 19.11.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 11061 / 2022 (Shyam Babu Sharma & another Vs. State of U.P. & another),

(ii) Order dated 25.02.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 1425 / 2022 (Shyam Babu Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & another); and

(iii) Order dated 19.11.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 No. 18472 / 2022 (Shyam Babu Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & another).

6. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the following prayers :

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this application and to quash the impugned order dated 07.12.2022 passed by learned court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) / Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Mathura in Case Crime No. 229/2019 (State Vs. Rameshwar) under Section 406 IPC, Police Station-Goverdhan, District Mathura.

May further be pleased to stay the operation and effect of impugned order dated effect and operation of the aforesaid order dated 07.12.2022 passed by learned court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) / Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Mathura in Case Crime No. 229/2019 (State Vs. Rameshwar) under Section 406 IPC, Police Station-Goverdhan, District Mathura during the pendency of the present application."

7. The dispute in the present case which crops up in the present case and is to be decided is in a narrow compass and to be crystallized is whether the filing of a bail application through lawyer is sufficient personal presence of the applicant in Court or not and the Court could proceed to hear and decide the same even though he is not physically / personally present before it in view of sub-para (e) of para 3 of the judgement in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr., (2021) 10 SCC 773.

8. The facts of the case being the prosecution case are not been dilated as the same have no relevance in the present matter. Reference are being given to only the facts which relate to the present petition for the prayers and the issue as stated above.

9. The applicant filed a Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. 18472 / 2022 (Shyam Babu Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and another) for quashing of the order dated 13.06.2022 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) / Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No. 2, Mathura. The said petition was heard and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant after arguing it for some time, on instructions, submitted that the applicant seeks some time to appear before the trial Court and requested that non-bailable warrant issued against him be kept in abeyance for a period of three weeks. The said petition stood disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court considering the undertaking given by the applicant directing that the non-bailable