Amar Nath Jha vs The State of Bihar and Another

Chandra Mohan Prasad, J.—The petitioner has approached this Court u/s 482 Cr. P.C. and he prays for quashing the order dated 15.5.03/ 17.5.03 of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jhanjharpur, passed in Trial No. 1785 of 2003 and the revisional order dated 12.2.2004 of the court of District & Sessions Judge, Madhubani, passed in Cri. Rev. No. 803 of 2003 whereby the petitioner''s prayer for dispensing with the personal attendance of the petitioner u/s 205 during the trial has been refused. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a trained graduate teacher in Kendriya Vidyalay No. 1, Agartala. He further submits that since the petitioner is employed at Agartala it is not practically possible for him to attend the court on the date fixed during the trial in the case and therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner says that personal attendance of the petitioner may be disposed with u/s 205 Cr. P.C. and he may be directed to be represented through the lawyer. Referring to the impugned order the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner''s prayer was rejected mainly on the ground that the petitioner has obtained bail and after obtaining bail to the petitioner the petition u/s 205 Cr. P.C. cannot be allowed. In this context the learned counsel refers to the decision of this Court in the case of Shantunu Das and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Another, wherein this court has taken the view that a petition u/s 205 Cr. P.C. can also be allowed even if the bail is granted to the accused. The learned A.P.P. has no objection to the prayer but she submits that petitioner may be directed to be physically present at the time of framing of charge or at any other date when the trial court directs. Thus considering as above the petitioner''s prayer for dispensing with his personal appearance in court u/s 205 Cr. P.C. being represented through a lawyer stands allowed. However, the trial court is at liberty to direct for personal attendance of the petitioner on any specific date as and when he thinks fit and the petitioner will attend the court on such date fixed.

The impugned order is hereby quashed and the application is allowed to the extent indicated above.