Single judge stayed a bail cancellation order against petitioners who failed to appear in trial court due to a communication gap, accepting their undertaking to appear regularly; warrant to remain in abeyance.
Impugned order cancelling bail and issuing non-bailable warrant kept in abeyance on condition of undertaking to appear in future.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M.P. No. 2340 of 2017
02/05.09.2017: Heard the parties.
In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 23.09.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ghatshila, East Singhbhum, in connection with Galudih P.S. Case No.30 of 2015 (G.R. No.386 of 2015) whereby and whereunder bail of the petitioners has been cancelled and non bailable warrant of arrest has been ordered to be issued against them.
It appears that the police papers were supplied on 22.07.2016 and the petitioners were physically present. However, on the next date i.e. on 11.08.2016, the petitioners were directed to be physically present for framing of charge but they were represented which was allowed. Subsequently, on 23.09.2016, since, the petitioners did not appear physically, their bail have been cancelled and non bailable warrant of arrest were directed to be issued against them.
It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that on account of some communication gap, the petitioners could not physically appear before the court below, which led to passing of the impugned order 23.09.2016.
Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes that the petitioners shall appear on each and every date as and when directed by the court below.
Learned Addl. P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners.
Taking into consideration the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners as well as undertaking given by the petitioners, these petitioners are directed to remain physically present from the next date onwards until and unless directed otherwise by the court below in spite of the order dated 23.09.2016. If the petitioners fail to remain physically present before the court below, all coercive steps shall be taken against these petitioners for securing their attendance.
The order dated 23.09.2016 shall be kept in abeyance on account of the undertaking given by the petitioners that they shall regularly appear before the court below on each and every date as and when directed by the court below and shall revive if the petitioners fail to appear even in spite of the direction given by the learned trial court.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, this application is disposed of.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay,J)
Ravi/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to quash the order cancelling bail and issuing non-bailable warrant due to the petitioners' failure to appear in court due to a communication gap.
Jayant Lal Dutta @ Jayanta Lal Dutta
Vishal Agrawal
The State of Jharkhand
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
