Umesh Agarwal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 July, 2017

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Umesh Agarwal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 July, 2017

Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                         Cr.M.P. No. 1230 of 2017
                                      ---
            Umesh Agarwal, S/o Bishwanath Agarwal, R/o Village Kanjkiro P.O.
            Kanjkiro, P. S. Penk Narayanpur, District Bokaro
                                                  ...     ...    Petitioner
                                     Versus
            The State of Jharkhand                ...     ...    Opp. Party
                                      ---
      CORAM       : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
                                     ---
            For the Petitioner       : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate
            For the Opp. Party       : Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, A.P.P.
                                     ---
02/04.07.2017

Heard Mr. Lukesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State.

In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 16.08.2016 passed in S. T. Case No. 351 of 2012 whereby and whereunder the representation application filed under Section 317 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner has been rejected and while cancelling the bail bond of the petitioner non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against him.

It appears that the petitioner was never directed to appear physically in earlier dates and on 16.08.2016 although application under Section 317 Cr.P.C. was moved but since the petitioner did not make himself physically present such application was rejected, the bail bond was cancelled and non-bailable warrant of arrest was directed to be issued against him. The earlier order reflects that the petitioner has been represented under Section 317 of the Cr.P.C. The learned court below could not have passed a composite order rejecting the application under Section 317 Cr.P.C. cancelling the bail bond of the petitioner and directing issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner.

The learned trial court could have directed the petitioner to be physically present on the next date while rejecting the application under Section 317 Cr.P.C. but the order which has been passed on 16.08.2016 is against the spirit of Section 317 Cr.P.C. and in such circumstance, therefore, the impugned order dated 16.08.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judges, 1st, Bermo at Tenughat in Bermo Thermal P. S. Case No. 13 of 2012 is, hereby, quashed and set aside.

-2-

Since it appears that in 2012 itself the case has been committed to the court of sessions and the charge has not been framed, the petitioner is directed to remain physically present on the next date and the learned trial court shall take all endeavour so that the charge is framed at the earliest.

This application stands disposed of with the aforementioned observations.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) Umesh/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court