Mamta @ Mamta Devi vs State Of Jharkhand

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he will remove the surviving defect, in course of the day.

Let him do so.

This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 19.09.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Hazaribagh in connection with Gola P.S. Case No.65 of 2016, corresponding to S.T. No.348 of 2021, pending in the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Hazaribagh.

Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a sitting MLA of Jharkhand Legislative Assembly. He further submits that the prosecution evidence has been closed on 22.08.2022 and again the matter was fixed on 07.09.2022 for examination of the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. On 07.09.2022, the petitioner has physically appeared but the court was not available and the next date was fixed on 14.09.2022. On 14.09.2022, the petitioner was represented through her lawyer and on that date, the statement of four accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the matter was fixed on 19.09.2022. On 19.09.2022, the petitioner was also represented through her lawyer and representation petition was also filed on the ground that she was not able to walk and her brother-in-law, namely, Tikeshwar Kumar died on 18.09.2022 and the petitioner had gone to attend the funeral. However, the representation petition was rejected by the learned trial court and the bail has been cancelled and bailors have been noticed and non-bailable warrant has been directed to be issued and the said order was also communicated to the Hon'ble Speaker of the Jharkhand Legislative Assembly. He further submits that all these happened by one order dated 19.09.2022.

Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the State submits that the matter was fixed for examination of the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C, but she has not appeared and that is why the learned court has rightly rejected the petition and proceeded further.

The Court has perused the impugned order dated 19.09.2022 and finds that the learned court looking into the record and considering that on 14.09.2022 the statement of only four accused persons has been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the petitioner being the sitting MLA, has not appeared and also seeing that the matter was fixed for examination of the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the bail of the petitioner has been cancelled, non-bailable warrant has been directed to be issued and show-cause notice has been issued to the bailors and copy of the said order was communicated to the Hon'ble Speaker of the Jharkhand Legislative Assembly. This is not a case that the petitioner was not appearing in the learned court. The petition under Section 317 Cr.P.C. was already filed. The documents annexed at Annexure-2 suggest that the petitioner has been blessed with a child recently on 13.08.2022 and her brother-in-law has died.

All these facts were disclosed in the petition, contained in Annexure-3 of the petition, which was filed before the learned trial court. If such a situation was there, the learned court was required to consider it in its right perspective. If the court was inclined to reject the petition filed under Section 317 Cr.P.C., after rejecting the same further date for physical appearance was required to be provided, but the learned court has not done so in the case in hand. Before cancelling the bail, the bailors were required to notice and thereafter it was required to proceed to cancel the bail, however the learned court has not taken care of while passing the impugned order. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19.09.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Hazaribagh in connection with Gola P.S. Case No.65 of 2016, corresponding to S.T. No.348 of 2021, pending in the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Hazaribagh, so far as the petitioner is concerned, is, hereby, set aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned court to proceed afresh, in accordance with law. The petitioner shall appear before the learned court on or before 02.11.2022. If the petitioner appears before the learned court on or before the aforesaid date, the petitioner will be allowed to remain on the same bail bond, which has been cancelled by the impugned order. If the petitioner fails to appear before the learned court on or before the aforesaid date, all coercive measures shall be taken against the petitioner by the learned court.

Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of.