Prabhat Kumar vs The State of Jharkhand & Anr

Heard Mr. P. P. N. Roy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Lily Sahay, learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 14.11.2014 passed in Complaint Case No. 882 of 2009 by the learned C.J.M., Hazaribagh by

which the bail of the petitioner has been cancelled while rejecting the representation preferred by the petitioner under Section 317 of Cr.P.C. The

petitioner has also challenged the subsequent orders by which coercive steps have been ordered to be taken against the petitioner apart from the

petitioner being declared an absconder and issuing permanent warrant of arrest against him.

It has been stated by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the case was fixed for recording the evidence of the accused under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and there was no prior intimation regarding necessity of the physical appearance of the petitioner. He further submits that

the petitioner has preferred an application under Section 317 of Cr.P.C. which however was rejected leading to passing of the impugned order

dated 14.11.2014 and the successive orders taking of coercive steps against the petitioner. Learned senior counsel submits that the petitioner

undertakes to appear on the next date fixed if directed by this court.

Learned A.P.P. for the State opposed the prayer.

Pursuant to the order dated 13.12.2017, a supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. The supplementary affidavit

includes copy of the order sheet just prior to the issuance of the order dated 14.11.2014. None of the orders prior to the order dated 14.11.2014

reveals that the petitioner was directed to remain physically present before the learned trial court. However, the matter was fixed on 14.11.2014

for recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Since there was no direction for requirement of petitioner to remain

physically present on 14.11.2014, the learned trial court could have given a direction to the petitioner to remain physically present on the next date

and in fact the learned trial court in haste has straightway rejected the application of the petitioner under Section 317 of Cr.P.C. apart from

cancelling bail of the petitioner.

In view of the findings recorded above, the impugned order dated 14.11.2014 being not sustainable in the eye of law is hereby quashed and set

aside and the consequent to the quashment of the impugned order subsequent orders dated 11.02.2015, 08.04.2015 and 19.06.2015 are also

quashed and set aside. The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned trial court within a period of 2 weeks and if he appears within the

period aforesaid, the learned trial court shall make all endeavour to record the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and shall

proceed speedily thereafter.

This application stands disposed of.