Jharkhand High Court
Budu Munda vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Cbi on 7 October, 2020
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1938 of 2004
Budu Munda ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through CBI ... Respondent
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Appellant : Mr. Binod Kr. Singh, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Shekhar Sinha, PP 05 / 07.10.2020 I.A. No. 4530 of 2020
Heard the parties through Video Conferencing. This interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer to recall / modify the order dated 06.07.2020.
Perusal of the record reveals that on 06.07.2020, no one appeared on behalf of the appellant and it has been mentioned that in the said order dated 06.07.2020 that on 05.06.2020 also, none appeared behalf of the appellant and the conditional order was passed on 06.06.2020 that if no one appears on the next date of listing of this case that is 06.07.2020, the bail granted to the appellant shall stand cancelled. The appellant has given a vague address in the appeal memo by mentioning his description in the cause title of this appeal memo as - Budu Munda S/o Marju Munda, resident of village- Khunti, P.S. - Khunti, District- Ranchi. As no one turned up for the appellant in this appeal, on consecutive dates of listing of appeal and thereby the appellant did not cooperate with the hearing of appeal which is already sixteen years old and thereby made his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 420/468/477A/468/471 IPC as well as section 5 (1) (d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 inconsequential and it was submitted by learned counsel for the CBI on 06.07.2020, that since the appellant has not obeyed the orders of this court and he has not appeared in this case and as the bail during the pendency of the appeal does not confer any unfettered right upon an appellant- accused as the same entails with it the liability of the appellant to co-operate with the hearing of the appeal and as the appellant was not co-operating with the hearing of the appeal it was urged upon by the counsel of the CBI to cancel the bail granted to him, hence, the bail granted to the appellant, which was confirmed by this court vide order dated 13.01.2005 was cancelled.
A fresh power has been executed by the appellant and in the fresh Vakalatnama, description of the appellant has been mentioned by changing his father's name from Marju Munda to Maglu Munda. In the fresh Vakalatnama, the description of the appellant has been made as " Budu Munda, S/o Late Maglu Munda, R/o Village- Salehatu, P.O.- Maranghada P.S. - Murhu, Dist.- Ranchi". Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, submits that the district 'Ranchi' has wrongly been mentioned in the Vakalatnama and the same be read as district- Khunti but the other descriptions of the appellant - Budu Munda mentioned in the Vakalatnama are correct.
A report has been received from learned trial court wherein it has been mentioned that non-bailable warrant of arrest against the convict- Budu Munda has returned by the CBI as he was not found in his house and he is absconding.
Considering this conduct of the appellant, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case to interfere with the order dated 06.07.2020 passed in this appeal. The appellant is directed to surrender in the trial court forthwith. The trial court is directed to issue a fresh non-bailable warrant of arrest for apprehension of the appellant-convict in his present and correct address and further to take coercive steps for apprehension of the appellant for undergoing the sentence and also to submit a report about the status of the non-bailable warrant of arrest within eight weeks.
List this appeal after the receipt of the report from the trial court or after ten weeks, whichever is earlier.