Chattisgarh High Court
Sandeep Sondh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 January, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:641
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 1444 of 2024
1 - Sandeep Sondh S/o Mohinder Sondh Aged About 38 Years R/o House No. 112, Phase
No. 1 Tower, Enclave Batala Road, P.S. Bhargo Camp, District : Jalandhar, Punjab
... Applicant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O., P.S. Nandghat, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Applicant : Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 06/01/2025
1. The State Counsel has accepted the advance copy of this CRR.
2. The present criminal revision is filed under Section 438 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashment of the order dated 08.11.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, Bemetara (C.G.) (Under The Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Act 2 2005) District- Bemetara (C.G.) whereby the application filed by the applicant under Section 317 of Cr.P.C. has been rejected, bail bonds of the applicant has been discharged and issued the arrest warrant against the present applicant.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 09.08.2016, the complainant Ramsanehi Baghel has made a written report to the police of Police Station- Nandghat, District- Bemetara (C.G.) against one Makhanlal Satnami. The complaint was made to the effect that, upon consistent allurement and insistence of accuse Makhanlal Satnami, that, his amount would be tripled within a period of 5 years, on 16.04.2010 he has given first installment of Rs. 14,500/- and a total sum of Rs. 57,500/- to Makhanlal Satnami. But after completion of term of 5 years, Makhanlal has not given his Rs. 90,000/-. Upon asking he informed that, he has deposited the amount with the Director namely Gurvinder Singh of B.N. Gold Real Estate Ltd. Branch New Delhi and this is how, the complainant has defrauded by Makhanlal Satnami and action be taken against him and amount of Rs. 90,000/- be given to him.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on 08.11.2024 the case was fixed for further orders and on the said date the applicant was ill therefore his counsel has moved an application under Section 317 of Cr.P.C. along with the relevant medical documents and sought for condonation of non-appearance of the applicant but the learned Trial Court has not applied its judicious mind and has rejected the application under Section 317 of Cr.P.C. vide its order dated 08.11.2024. He further contended that the applicant is a resident of Jalandhar (Punjab) and • therefore on each and every hearing it is practically not possible for him to appear before the learned Trial Court.
5. Learned Counsel for the State raised no objection in this regard.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.
7. On perusal of record it transpires that on 23.10.2024 the matter 3 was fixed for further orders and on the said date the counsel for the applicant filed an application under Section 317 of Cr.P.C. seeking exemption from appearance on the ground that the father of the applicant is not keeping well and the learned Trial Court had allowed the said application and the matter was fixed again for further orders on 08.11.2024. Again, on 08.11.2024 the counsel for the applicant moved an application under Section 317 of Cr.P.C for condonation of non-appearance of the applicant and submitted prescription of Dr. Sushil Puri of Puri Poly Clinic & Acupuncture Centre, Jalandhar, Punjab (Ex. P/3) and the doctor has advised him to take rest for 2 days. Since the applicant is a resident of Jalandhar, Punjab it is not possible for him to appear before the Court below on each and every hearing.
8. On perusal of record it is crystal clear that some of the accused have already absconded and on 08.11.2024 the case was fixed for production warrant of other co-accused namely Vikas Kumar and Vinay Kumar.
9. The learned Trial Court without appreciating the fact that the applicant is a resident of Jalandhar (Punjab) and on that date it was not possible for him to appear in person. The Trial Court has not only rejected the application for condonation of non- appearance of applicant but also discharged the bail bond and issued arrest warrant against the applicant.
10. Section 317 of Cr.P.C., 1973 provides that
317. Provision for inquiries and trial being held in the absence of accused in certain cases (1) At any stage of an inquiry or trial under this Code, if the Judge or Magistrate is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded, that the personal attendance of the accused before the Court is not necessary in the interests of justice, or that the accused persistently disturbs the proceedings in Court, the Judge or Magistrate may, if the accused is represented by a 4 pleader, dispense with his attendance and proceed with such inquiry or trial in his absence, and may, at any subsequent stage of the proceedings, direct the personal attendance of such accused.
(2) If the accused in any such case is not represented by a pleader, or if the Judge or Magistrate considers his personal attendance necessary, he may, if he thinks fit and for reasons to be recorded by him, either adjourn such inquiry or trial, or order that the case of such accused be taken up or tried separately.
11. As per the prescription dated 08.11.2024 given by Dr. Sushil Puri, it is clear that the applicant was suffering from throat infection and has advised the applicant to take rest for 2 days. The satisfactory reasons has been given by the petitioner and therefore the personal attendance of the accused before the Court was not necessary on 08.11.2024 in the interest of justice.
12. It is directed that the Trial Court shall recall the warrant of arrest and the applicant is directed that he shall appear before the Trial Court on each date fixed by the Trial Court.
13. Therefore, the order dated 08.11.2024. passed by the Sessions Judge, Bemetara in Special Case No. 03/2017 is hereby set- aside and the present CRR stands allowed.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima