Disposed

Parvez Alam And Anr. v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC4 Oct 2017Cr.M.P./2648/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition, the High Court of Jharkhand set aside the trial court order rejecting an application for bail and issuing a warrant due to miscommunication regarding court appearance. The court directed physical presence for charge framing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order setting aside; petitioners directed to remain physically present on next date fixed by trial court.

Parvez Alam And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M. P. No. 2648 of 2017

¶2

1.Parvez Alam Md. Parvej Alam son of Md. Jamaluddin 2.Lara son of Faiz Ahmad

¶3

both are residents of C/o New Maharaja Footwear, Golpark Ramgarh Eaulf, PO Ramgarh, PS Ramgarh, District Ramgarh, Jharkhand … … Petitioners

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party

¶6

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶7

For the Petitioners : Mr. Anil Kumar, Senior Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Shekhar Sinha, A.P.P.

¶8

2/04.10.2017 Heard Mr. Anil Kumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶9

In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the order dated 14.09.2015 passed in S. T. No. 156 of 2010 by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge III, Hazaribagh whereby and whereunder the application filed under Section 317 of Cr.P.C. has been rejected and by canceling the bail bonds of the petitioners, non-bailable warrant of arrest has been ordered to be issued against them.

¶10

It has been stated by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners had regularly appeared before the learned trial court and on 24.08.2015 while rejecting the discharge application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. by one of the accused, all the accused persons were directed to be present on 14.09.2015. He further submits that since due to miscommunication his lawyer was also not aware of the said fact, an application was filed under Section 317 of Cr.P.C. on that date, which was rejected on 14.09.2015. It has further been stated that the counsel has on the subsequent date even after cancellation of bail, had filed an application under Section 317 of Cr.P.C. as could be detected by the order dated 20.11.2015. Learned senior counsel submits that the petitioners undertake to appear on each and every date as directed by the learned trial court.

¶11

Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer.

¶12

-2-

¶13

It appears that the accused persons were directed by the learned trial court on 24.08.2015 to remain physically present on 14.09.2015 for framing of charge. The petitioner was represented under Section 317 of Cr.P.C. and subsequently non-bailable warrant of arrest was directed to be issued against the petitioners. The submissions advanced by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner do seems to have some substance with respect to the non-communication of the requirement of the petitioners to remain present on 14.09.2015 which is further fortified by the fact that even after cancellation of bail bonds, again an application under Section 317 of Cr.P.C. was filed by the learned counsel for the petitioners appearing in the learned trial court.

¶14

In view of the aforesaid facts therefore by setting aside the order dated 14.09.2015 passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge III, Hazaribagh in S. T. No. 156 of 2010, the petitioners are directed to remain physically present on the next date fixed by the trial court. If the petitioners remain physically present, the learned trial court shall take all endeavour to frame the charge and thereafter dispose of the matter expeditiously. The petitioners shall remain physically present as and when directed by the learned trial court and even in spite of the undertaking, if the petitioners fail to remain present on any particular date, the learned trial court shall take all coercive steps to secure their attendance.

¶15

This application stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.

¶16

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)

¶17

R. Shekhar Cp 3

Parvez Alam And Anr. v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parvez Alam And Anr. v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Kumar Gupta And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Santosh Yadav Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Singrai Jonko Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Pankaj Agarwal Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Subhash Gagrai Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Nemchand Mandal And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand