Pramod Kumar Mishra And Anr vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr on 13 September, 2017

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Pramod Kumar Mishra And Anr vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr on 13 September, 2017

Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                       Cr.M.P. No. 1667 of 2017
                                 ---------

           1. Pramod Kumar Mishra, S/o Surya Nath Mishra.
           2. Asha Devi @ Asha Mishra, W/o Anil Kumar Mishra,
              Both are residents of C/115, Police Colony, Anishabad,
              P.O. & P.S. Gardanibag, District Patna, Bihar.
                                                      ... ... Petitioners
                                   Versus
           1. The State of Jharkhand
           2. Preeti Mishra, D/o Vijay Prasad Pandey, R/o Q.No. MM-
              238, Shastri Nagar, Monnidih, P.O. & P.S. Putki, District-
              Dhanbad.                       ... ... Opposite Parties
                                   ---------
    CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
                              ---------
          For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
          For the State       : Mr. Ashok Kumar, A.P.P.
                              ---------

04/13.09.2017

Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State.

This application is directed against the order dated 26.11.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in connection with C.P. Case No. 1662 of 2007, whereby and whereunder the representation petition filed by the petitioners u/s 317 Cr.P.C. had been rejected and the bail bond of the petitioners have been cancelled and non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against them.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that an application u/s 317 Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the petitioners to allow the representation application u/s 317 Cr.P.C. in view of the fact that their aunt had died. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case was at the stage of argument and in spite of giving a reasonable cause the learned court below had cancelled the bail of the petitioners and issued non-bailable warrant of arrest against them.

Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners.

It appears from the petition u/s 317 Cr.P.C. which contains a statement that the aunt of the petitioners had died for which exemption has been sought for to be represented -2- through their lawyer u/s 317 Cr.P.C. The learned court below on 26.11.2015 had not considered the application u/s 317 Cr.P.C. while passing the impugned order.

In view of the fact that sufficient explanation has been submitted by the petitioners with respect to their not remaining physically present, while setting aside the order dated 26.11.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in connection with C.P. Case No. 1662 of 2007 the petitioners are directed to remain physically present on each and every date as and when directed by the learned trial court. The learned trial court is directed to expedite the argument of the case and deliver the judgment within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

This application stands disposed of with the aforementioned observations.

Let this order be communicated through 'FAX' to the concerned court at the cost to be deposited by the petitioners.

(R. Mukhopadhyay, J.) Alok/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court