petitioner that the petitioner has been made accused in a case instituted for bailable offences under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. He was released on bail in connection with the said case on 10th November, 1999 by the police. Though the petitioner being on bail continued to attend the court proceedings, co-accused Tuntun Mahto did not appear before the court, as a result of which the record of the petitioner was separated vide order dated 3rd May, 2006. Subsequently, due to non-appearance of the petitioner, his bail bond was cancelled and a non-bailable warrant was issued against him vide order dated 9th August, 2007. It has been contended that in absence of any service report of the warrant of arrest, an attachment order was issued and the petitioner was declared absconder vide order dated 24th March, 2015. It has been further contended that the pre-requisites for declaring a person absconder under Section 299 of the CrPC have not been fulfilled and the learned Magistrate has also acted illegally in issuing processes against the petitioner under Sections 82 and 83 of the CrPC. It has been also contended that the petitioner has clean antecedent and has never been made accused in any other criminal case. As a matter of fact, he was indisposed on 9th August, 2007 as a result of which pairvi was not made on his behalf and his lawyer never informed him that his bail bond has been cancelled. Since witnesses were not appearing in the case between 1999 and July,
