IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2003 of 2024 ------

Sunil Kumar, aged about 30 years, Son of Bhikhari Paswan, Resident of Village-Mahadewan, Jamuhar, P.O. Dehri, P.S. Dehri, District Rohtas, State Bihar. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Santosh Kumar Tiwari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl.P.P.

------

P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- 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, 1973 with the prayer to quash the order dated 15.04.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, NDPS, Simdega in N.D.P.S. Case No.03 of 2018 corresponding to T. Tanger P.S. Case No.30 of 2018, whereby and where under consequent upon failure of the petitioner who is the accused person of the case in violating the terms and conditions of the bail granted to him by this Court of remaining present physically before the trial court on each and every date till conclusion of the trial and by not co-operating in framing of the charge even in spite of direction of the trial court to remain physically present in the trial court for the purpose of consideration of framing of the charge; the learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the prayer of the petitioner under Section 317 of the Cr.P.C. and also rejected the prayer for time to defer the framing of charge and ordered for issuance of the non-bailable warrant against the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Himanshu Sharma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2024 INSC 139 and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the well- settled law that the consideration for grant of bail and cancellation thereof are entirely different. Bail granted to an accused can only be cancelled if the Court is satisfied that after being released on bail:-

(a) the accused has misused the liberty granted to him;

(b) flouted the conditions of bail order;

(c) that the bail was granted in ignorance of statutory provisions restricting the powers of the Court to grant bail;

(d) or that the bail was procured by misrepresentation or fraud.

4. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent. It is then submitted that Cr.M.P. No.3944 of 2023 has been dismissed as withdrawn on 12.01.2026 which was filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 16.08.2023 by which, the petition to discharge the petitioner has been rejected. It is then submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, NDPS, Simdega has erroneously rejected the prayer for representation through the lawyer dispensing with his personal appearance. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Cr.M.P. be allowed.

5. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand submits that in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Himanshu Sharma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) itself, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that if the accused person to whom the bail is granted, flouts the condition of the bail order, then the bail granted can be cancelled. It is next submitted that in this case undisputed fact remains that the petitioner was granted bail by this Court with the condition that he has to remain physically present before the trial court on each and every date to which the case is fixed till the conclusion of trial but on several occasions, the petitioner has violated the conditions of the bail order passed by this Court and not even on a single occasion after furnishing bail bond, the petitioner has appeared before the learned trial court; on any day to which the case was fixed. Even though the learned trial court direc