IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.45670 of 2009 Balram Kumar Singh, son of Shri Amar Singh, Managing Director of M/S BCSD Ltd. Corporate Office at Ashok Nagar, Road No. 14, Street Number 5, Lohiya Nagar, PS Kankarbagh, District Patna ….Petitioner Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Dr. Sunil Kumar, son of Dr. Jagdish Singh, Surgery Care, New Bahadurpur Housing Colony, Gandhi Nagar, PS Patrakar Nagar, District & Town Patna resident of Flat No. 701,Sahi Complex, New Dakbunglow Road, P.S. Kotwali, District Patna. …………….. Opposite parties ----------- 2. 06.04.2010 Heard leaned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 27.3.2009 of the Judicial Magistrate, lst Class, Patna in Complaint Case No.,3341 ( C ) of 2007 as upheld on 7.9.2009 in Cr. Revision No. 305 of 2009 rejecting his prayer under Section 205 Cr.P.C. The Complaint case has been filed on 30.11.2007. Cognizance has been taken on 10.1.2008 under Section 420 IPC and Section 138 of the N. I. Act. Counsel for the petitioner fairly acknowledges that till date the petitioner has neither appeared in the trial nor moved an appropriate Court for grant of bail. Emphasising that Section 205 Cr.P.C. was to be construed liberally and only because the petitioner was a resident of Patna itself he could not be discriminated on that ground. Reliance is placed on a Bench decision in 2007(1) PLJR 822 (Manish Gai Vrs State of Bihar). The power exercised by the Magistrate under Section 205 Cr.P.C. is discretionary in nature. It is upon the satisfaction of the Magistrate on reasons shown to him that he may dispense personal attendance of the accused or to permit him to appear 2 by a Pleader. A discretionary power unless exercised palpably for illegal reason or arbitrarily does not warrant interference in exercise of Section 482 Cr.P.C. merely because a different conclusion may be possible with regard to use of such discretionary power. In the judgment in the case of Manish Gai (Supra) relied upon by the petitioner, a person was made accused in a case filed before the SDJM Patna. He resided at Katni in the Madhya Pradesh where he conducted business on behalf of the company. The reason why this Court interfered with the exercise of discretion rejecting an application under Section 205 Cr.P.C. has to be found in Para 8 of the judgment holding to the following fact:- “8. ........... If courts were to insist that on each and every date i.e. virtually every fifteen days an accused must appear from Katni in the State of Madhya Pradesh to Patna and attend his court and that too for no purpose, except filing attendance it would only be travesty of justice. To my mind, to undertake journey from Katni to Patna so frequently would be greater punishment than what he could have punished in the case. ........” That distinguishes the case of the petitioner who acknowledges himself to be a local resident of Patna. If he has to travel outside Patna for business as he contends, surely he can regulate his calendar when his hearth and home is at Patna. This Court is satisfied that the present application has not been filed bonafide but only with intention to delay appearance in the case and obviate the possibility of having to move for bail. The impugned order aptly records that he has remedy of Section 317 Cr.P.C. available to him on routine dates and 3 even on specified date should occasion arise he always can seek exemption for personal appearance on that date. Reliance on Cr. Misc. No. 38461 of 2008 by the petitioner in context of another prosecution filed by other than opposite party no. 2 where he has been granted exemption under Section 205 Cr.P.C. does not appeal to the Court. The stand taken therein was as follows: “The stand of the petitioner is that as he is posted at Delhi and holds important post, he would be unable to attend the Court on each and every date and, therefore his personal appearance in the court may be exempted.” There is no such pleading in the present application This application is dismissed. It is made clear that any application for bail has to be considered on its own merit in accordance with law when the effect of the present order shall remain confined for the purpose of Section 482 Cr.P.C. only in context of provisions of Section 205 Cr.P.C. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)