IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.55097 of 2007 DEEPAK KUMAR @ VIKRAM Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 5.9.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The grievance of the petitioner is directed against the order dated 21.11.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Patna, in Cr. Revision No. 834 of 2006, whereby while confirming the order dated 26.9.2006 passed by Sri S.P.Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, in Patliputra P.S. Case No. 75 of 2005, he granted one month’s time to the petitioner to surrender in the court below. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 26.9.2006 after rejecting the petition of the petitioner under section 317 Cr.P.C. had issued non bailable warrant against him. It appears that the petitioner had been granted bail by the Magisterial Court and during the trial he was directed by order dated 4.8.2006 to be physically present in Court on 26.9.2006. On that date in view of the disobedience of the order the petition filed on his behalf under section 317 Cr.P.C. was rejected. A revision was preferred against that order being Cr. Revision No. 834 of 2006 which approved the order of the learned Magistrate but the learned Sessions Judge was liberal enough to grant him one month’s time to surrender which has not been complied with and instead this application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed. The submission advanced by the learned counsel for the - 2 - petitioner is that since the petitioner was on sea in connection with his employment he could not appear before the Court. The submission is not fully correct. It will appear that on 4.8.2006 i.e. the day that the order of the Magistrate was passed and 26.8.2006 on the date when the petition under section 317 Cr.P.C. was cancelled, the petitioner was very much available in the country and on land. It was only on 2.10.2006 that he took to the sea. Therefore, if the petitioner so wanted he could have easily made himself available in the Court, which as it appears, whether on illogical presumption or wrong submissions was deliberately avoided. That apart the petitioner never took permission of the Court to go to the sea and today he could not raise the plea of being absent from the ground of being on sea. Be that as it may I am not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner and he is directed to surrender in the court below and seek regular bail. With the aforesaid observation this application is dismissed. Spd/- (Abhijit Sinha, J.)