Petitioners sought quashing of N.B.W. issued after thirteen years delay due to communication gap and warrant inexperience. Court refused quash but directed bail on surrender with cash surety and tested cooperation.
Bail granted on surrender within four weeks with Rs. 2,000 cash surety each; no appearance or violation.
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.
CRLMC No.862 of 2020
1
2 16.07.2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jyoti Prakash Patra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State by video conferencing mode.
The Photostat copy of the ordersheet of the learned A.S.J. cum C.J.M Phulbani, District- Kandhamal in S.T No 22 of 2006 containing order dated 25.10.2006 , 05.09.2007 , 08.10.2007 , 3.12.2007, 08.01.2008 , 28.02.2008 , 21.04.2008 and 29.07.2008 is filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is kept in the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, Sara Badi, Uttara Kumbhar, Panchu Bandaki and Ansu @ Anoku Kumbhar praying for quashing of the order dated 28.03.2007 passed by the learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Phulbani in S.T. Case No.22 of 2006 ( arising out of Gochhapada P.S case No 33 of 2020 ) directing issuance of N.B.W. against them.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were on bail vide order dated 25.10.2006 passed by learned A.S.J.-cum-C.J.M., Phulbani and after cognizance was taken and summons issued to them , they had appeared in the court below and had been released on bail. Thereafter, after commitment , they have continued on their previous bail as per order dated 25.10.2006 of the trial Court and were appearing on each date the case was posted and have not misused the liberty granted to them. But on 28.03.2007, due to communication gap, they could not be present in court and their counsel had not taken any steps on their behalf , for which N.B.W of arrest has been issued against them. They were
2
not aware of the issue of warrant till 09.12.2019 and applied for certified copy on the next day and filed this petition after receipt of the same. He further submits that the petitioners are ready and willing to cooperate with the learned trial court for early disposal of the trial.
Bichi
After perusal of the order sheet it is found that the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners is not entirely correct. The submission that all the petitioners on their appearance on 25.10.2006 vide Order No 12, had been allowed to continue on their previous bail is not correct. On that date, only petitioner No. 1 - Sara Badi who was present has been allowed to continue on his previous bail. The other three petitioners were absent and were allowed to be represented under Sec- 317 Cr.P.C for that day. Four other accused persons were released on bail for that on that day . It is also found that N.B.W of arrest has been issued against Petitioner No 1 Sara Badi, and Petitioner No 3- Panchu Bandaki on 08.02.2007 vide Order No. 17 fixing 01.03.2007 for execution . On 28.03.2007 vide Order No 19 Petitioner No 2 Uttara Kumbhar, petitioner No 3-Panchu Bandaki and Petitioner No. 1- Sara Badi were present but NBW of arrest has been issued against them. (The word “present” may be a clerical error as it has not been challenged by the petitioners). Thereafter on 23.04.2007 vide Order No 20, N.B.W of arrest has been issued against all the petitioners due to their absence.
There is no illegality in the order dated 23.04.2007 issuing N.B.W of arrest and it does not warrant any interference more so when it is being challenged after thirteen
3
years. But considering the fact that the warrants have not been executed for all these years , for which the trial has been stalled and as the petitioners are willing to cooperate with the trial, I direct that in the event the petitioners surrender before the learned court below in connection with the aforesaid case within a period of four weeks hence and move for bail, they shall be released on bail on such terms and conditions as the learned court below may deem just and proper with further conditions that the petitioners shall appear before the learned trial court on each date when the case would be fixed for trial and furnish a cash surety of Rs 2,000/- each. Violation of any of the terms and conditions fixed shall entail cancellation of bail.
The learned trial court shall do well to conclude the trial expeditiously.
Accordingly, the CRLMC stands disposed of.
…..…………………………. Savitri Ratho, J.
4
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to quash the order issuing N.B.W. against petitioners for non-attendance after thirteen years petition pending.
Whether petitioners are entitled to bail on surrender given long delay in execution of warrants.
Whether to direct trial court to conclude trial expeditiously.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sara Badi
Uttara Kumbhar
Panchu Bandaki
Ansu @ Anoku Kumbhar
Savitri Ratho
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
