» , j 3ingie Bencf‘ IN THE HON'BLE HIG (Ch g } H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRIMINAI‘. M.P. No. ' \4 S OF 2010 \ S. K. S. Sisodiya, S/o Shri Rampal Singh Sisodiya, Aged about 52 years, the then aesignated ofticef Bhilai Nagrik Sahkari V Bank Maryadit, Bhilai, Incharge Officer, (at the time of filing the charge sheet) Matsya Mahasangh Sahkari Sanstha, Malviya Nagar, Bhopal (M.P.)(Presently posted as Secretary C.G State Co- operative Marketing federation, Raipur) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through ‘— State Economic Ofe)nces‘ Investi%ation Bureau, Bhopal (M.P.) TITION UNDER SECTION-482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL ‘ PROCEDURE PETITIONER ‘E @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Cri. M.P. No. 406 of 2010 PETITIONER S.K.S Sisodiya VERSUS RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh Shri Manish Sharma counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vaibhav Goberdhan PL for respondent/State. PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. ORDER (19.07.201 0) Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 05.05.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by Iearned Sessions Judge, burg in Speciai Case No. 09/1998 whereby after canceling the bail, warrant of arrést has been issued against the petitioner. The order impugned has been passed by rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that on 12.4.2010 the petitioner could not appear before the Court for the reason that one of his relatives was seriously Ill He submits that as per the order dated 12 4 2010 the petitioner was requrred to appear on 5 5 2010 before the concerned Court but he could not appear on that date as he was not Informed about the date of his appearance by his counsel. He submits that this was a bona fide mistake on the part of the counsel as also the petitioner. According to the counsel for the petitioner, even in the application filed by the counsel under Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure he has admitted the fact that he did not inform the date of appearance to the petitioner and forr__._~ that reason he could not appear before the Court. 3. On the other hand counsel for the respondent/State supports the orderimpugned and submits that previously the petitioner remained absent before the Court and it appears that he is not interested'in adjudication of the matter. He submits that no leniency should be shown to such persons @ b.2‘- who are in the habit of not appearing in the Court even after the direction ofthe Court. 4. Be that as it may, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case in particuiar that in the petition fiied under Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the counsei has stated that he couid not inform the date of appearance to the petitioner, that the case was fixed for perusal of the case diary, that evidence has almost been completed by the parties and that the case is at the final stage, this Court is of the opinion that the order impugned requires interference. 5 . Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Order dated 5.5.2010 so far as it relates to issuance of warrant of arrest against the petitioner is quashed. It is informed that the next date fixed before the Court is 16.8.2010. In these circumstances, let the petitioner appear before the Court concerned on 16.8.2010 and thereafter as would be directed by the Court: concerned. The petitioner shall furnish a fresh bail bond to the f the concerned Court. k ?rit'mker Diwaker . Mgr: J SN- ll Judge l W ‘