The central legal point established is the power of the Sessions Judge to dispense with the personal appearance of the accused and consider bail applications under Section 317 of the Cr. P.C.

Judgment

1. Heard Mr. P.K. Roy Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned Senior PP assisted by Mr. K.P. Bhattacharjee, learned Addl. PP appearing for the respondents No. 1 & 2.

2. This criminal petition is directed against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shillong dated 20.05.2014 passed in Sessions Case No. 6/2014. On perusal of the said order dated 20.05.2014, it is clear that the learned counsel appeared for the accused in the said Sessions Case No. 6/2014 before the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Shillong. On bare perusal of the impugned order i.e. dated 20.05.2014, it appears that Section "205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973" (for short 'Cr. P.C.') had been misquoted. The committal proceeding is under Section 209 of the Cr. P.C. After that committal proceeding, the concerned accused persons were to appear before the Court of the concerned Sessions Judge. After the committal proceeding under Section 209 of the Cr. P.C. is completed, there is no question of going back to the procedures prescribed under Section 205 of the Cr. P.C. Under the general provision for inquiries and trial under the Cr. P.C., the learned Sessions Judge has the power to take the decision under Section 317 of the Cr. P.C. if the accused is represented by a pleader/counsel to dispense with his attendance and proceed with the trial, and direct the personal attendance of such accused at any subsequent stage of the proceedings.

3. In the present case, it appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shillong was not satisfied to invoke his power under Section 317 of the Cr. P.C. for dispensing the personal appearance of the accused/petitioners and thereby allowing to be represented by the counsel. After hearing the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties at some length, it appears that the accused/petitioners are not trying to avoid personal appearance before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shillong for facing the trials. Mr. P.K. Roy Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted at the Bar that the accused/petitioners are appearing before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shillong to face trials of the Sessions Case No. 6/2014. However, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the accused/petitioners are staying in Lumding, District, Nagaon, Assam, they need some time for appearing before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shillong to face trials.

4. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this criminal petition is disposed of by directing the accused/petitioners to appear before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shillong to face trials of Sessions Case No. 6/2014 on 28.07.2014 and on that day, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shillong shall consider the application for regular bail filed by the accused/petitioners. Normally, the application for regular bail filed by the accused in the Sessions trial case, are not rejected by the Sessions Judge inasmuch as rejection of regular bail shall cause much prejudice to the accused in putting up their effective defence. However, this Court is not deciding this point in the present criminal petition and the bail filed by the accused/petitioners should be considered and passed necessary order on 28.07.2014.

5. With the above observations and directions, this criminal petition is disposed of.