ORDER

01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.

pleased to dismiss the same.

4. The learned counsel for the State (Vigilance) on the other hand, vehemently opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the Petitioners and stated that the Petitioners belong to the district of Bargarh in Odisha and would face no inconvenience in attending the court in person. He further contended that the Petitioners have never appeared before the court till date.

“228. Magistrate may dispense with personal attendance of accused.

(2)But the Magistrate inquiring into or trying the case may, in his discretion, at any stage of the proceedings, direct the personal attendance of the accused, and, if necessary, enforce such attendance in the manner hereinbefore provided.”

7. In the above circumstances and the discussions made as above and further resorting to various decisions in the matter ofSri Rameshwar Yadav Vs. State of Bihar reported in2018 (4) SCC 608, Benjamin Roul Vs. Sajal Das reported in2017 (2) ILR (Cut) 964 andBanamali Pradhan Vs. State of