Jharkhand High Court
Sanawar Khan Alias Sanwar Khan vs The State Of Jharkhand on 29 June, 2017
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M.P. No. 1404 of 2017
Sanawar Khan alias Sanwar Khan .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Roy, APP
Order No. 03 Dated 29th June, 2017
Heard Mr. Lukesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Sudhir Kumar Roy, learned A.P.P. for the State.
In this application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 28.03.2017 passed in S.T. Case No. 238 of 2015 arising out of Namkum P.S. Case no. 14 of 2015 (G.R. No. 410 of 2015) by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-X, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder, the representation petition filed u/s 317 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner has been rejected and Non Bailable Warrant (NBW) has been directed to be issued against him.
It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was never directed to be physically present and on account of miscommunication, the lawyer could not press the application filed u/s 317 Cr.P.C., resulting in passing the impugned order dated 28.03.2017. Learned counsel further submits that the learned trial court could not have passed composite order while rejecting the representation petition filed under Section 317 Cr.P.C. and issuing NBW against the petitioner.
Pursuant to the order dated 22.06.2017, the learned counsel for the petitioner has produced before this Court certified copy of the previous orders passed by the learned trial court. Perusal of the order dated 27.02.2017 reveals that representation petition filed u/s 317 Cr.P.C. was allowed and the prosecution was directed to produce the witnesses. However, from the impugned order dated 28.03.2017 it appears that although a representation petition u/s 317 was filed but the same was not pressed, nor was the petitioner present, which resulted in passing the impugned order dated 28.03.2017. The impugned order dated 28.03.2017 is a composite order and without giving an opportunity to make the petitioner himself physically available, if at all the learned court required physical appearance of the petitioner and only on account of representation petition having not been pressed by the learned lawyer, the composite order, rejecting the representation petition 2. filed u/s 317 Cr.P.C. and directing for issuance of Non Bailable Warrant (NBW) against the petitioner, has been passed.
In such circumstances, the impugned order dated 28.03.2017 passed in S.T. Case No. 238 of 2015 arising out of Namkum P.S. Case no. 14 of 2015 (G.R. No. 410 of 2015) by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-X, Ranchi is hereby quashed and set aside and this application is allowed by observing that as and when the learned trial court requires physical presence of the petitioner, he will make himself present and if on any date in spite of direction of the learned trial court, the petitioner fails to remain physically present, the learned trial court may take coercive steps against the petitioner to secure his attendance.
Let the certified copy of the previous order, which has been produced at the Bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner, be kept on record.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J) MK