IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.874 of 2009 Dr. Praveen Kumar Banerjee @ Dr. Prabir Kumar Banerji son of Dr. Prasun Kumar Banerji, R/o 27-B, Rowland Road, 5th Floor, Calcutta-700020. (Formerly, R/o Dr. T.N. Banerjee Road, Gandhi Maidan (South West), Patna in the town and District of Patna. -----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Smt. Pratibha Prasad W/o Late Ramesh Prasad, R/o mohalla Bihari Kunj, Mukhania Kuan, P.S. Pirbahore in the town and District of Patna. ---- Opp. parties. ----------- 02 19.05.2011 Heard both sides. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be ready and willing to appear in person on the date(s) fixed by the Court as and when his presence in person would be required. This is what the petitioner has stated in para 20:- “20. That refusal to permit the petitioner to be represented under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure amounts to substitution of ultimate punishment which could be awarded. By no means, any purpose could be served by personal appearance of the petitioner day by day and, as such, the petitioner was entitled for his personal exemption in exercise of power conferred under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, especially when the petitioner was prepared to give undertaking to the satisfaction of the Court that, (i) He would not dispute his identity as a particular accused in the case; (ii) Counsel on his behalf would be present in court; (iii) He has no objection in recording of evidence in his absence; (iv) He would appear on any date as and when his personal appearance is required; and (v) He would not cause any obstruction in causing any delay in disposal of the case.” 2 It is also submitted that some of the accuseds of the present case filed a writ proceeding in this Court vide CR.WJC no. 793 of 2009 which has been admitted to hearing by order dated 07.03.2011 and the earlier order staying further proceeding in the Court below was directed to continue. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is satisfied that the order dated 30.03.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patna in complaint case no. 1848( c) of 2008 is required to be interfered with. Accordingly order refusing the petitioner to be represented through his counsel is quashed and set aside. Petitioner shall be permitted to appear in the proceeding through counsel and shall appear in person on the date(s) especially fixed therefor by the Court below, failing which the Court below shall have liberty to cancel the bail bond(s) of the petitioner and to proceed in accordance with law. The application stands disposed of. Sym (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)