Crl.Pet. 7/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. P K Talukdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also hear d Ms. A Begum, learned Addl. P. P. representing the State. 2. This application is filed seeking intervention with the order passed on 4.12.2010 by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta in GR Case No. 1260/2007, whereby Non-Bailable Warrant of Arrest has been issued against the pe titioners. 3. On an earlier occasion also, the learned Court had issued Non-Bailable W arrant of Arrest against the absconding accused and considering the submissions made that the accused had not received any summons from the Court and were unawa re about the pendency of the proceeding, this Court by order dated 10.11.2010 in Crl. Rev. Petition No.434/2010 allowed the 5 accused / petitioners to appear in the Court of the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate by 22.11.2010. Until t he permitted date, this Court had protected the petitioners by staying the execu tion of the warrant. But it was clearly reflected in the Court’s order that if t he petitioners’ fail to appear by 22.11.2010, the arrest order shall stand reviv ed. . 4. Notwithstanding the above order of the Court, the petitioners herein inc luding the 5 who had filed the Crl. Rev. Petition No.434/2010 had not appeared i n the Court on 22.11.2010 and for such failure of the accused (petitioners), fre sh Non-Bailable Warrant of Arrest has been ordered against the absconders fixing 20.1.2011 for their appearance. 5. It is submitted by Mr. P K Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner that because of wrong understanding of the Court’s order dated 10.11.2010 the ac cused had not appeared in the Court on the scheduled date i.e. on 22.12.2010. 6. However the learned Public Prosecutor Ms. A Begum submits that the order of this Court in Crl. Rev. Petition No.434/2010 was short and precise and there is no scope at all for misunderstanding the purport of the order. 7. I have considered the submissions made. I have also gone through this Co urt’s earlier order dated 10.11.2010 and find that the Court unambiguously had g ranted time till 22.11.2010 to the accused to appear in the Court and consequenc es of non appearance was also specified in this Court’s. Therefore misunderstand ing of the date for appearance of the accused can hardly be acceptable. 8. Furthermore the accused unlike the previous occasion were aware of the p ending proceeding and a submission from them about their willingness to particip ate in the trial cannot be considered to be a bona fide plea in the second round . 9. In the above circumstances, I do not see any justification to accept thi s petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.