HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.5825 of 2009 DATED:10.08.2009 Between: S.Kirshna Chaitanya Reddy .. Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.5825 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri Y.V.Srinivasan, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri K.Dhananjaya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who entered appearance for the first respondent. No notice is being ordered to the second respondent, as the matter is being disposed of at the stage of admission. The learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a copy of the petition filed under Section 317 of Cr.P.C. before the trial Court on 28.07.2009 for condoning the absence of the petitioner herein and it merely stated that the absence was due to ill health. The nature or the details of the ill health are not specified nor can it be deduced from the petition that the ill health was of such a nature as would prevent the petitioner from attending the Court. The certified copy of the docket proceedings in the case produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner shows that the trial Court issued summons to the accused since 21.01.2006 till 08.01.2008 and after appearance also, the petitioner herein was absent at least on three occasions including the date on which the non-bailable warrant was issued. The trial Court has recorded the reasons for dismissing the petition, as no medical certificate was filed and as it was not satisfied with the reasons for absence of the petitioner and the case is pending since three years and the reasons cannot be considered to be either adverse to the material found on record or to be not for logical and acceptable reasons. Learned counsel for the petitioner produced a copy of the order of this Court in Crl.P.No.4441 of 2009, dated 29.06.2009, but that was a case where the petitioner therein did not appear to have defaulted in appearing before the Court or co-operating with the further progress of the case and as the docket did not show any conduct on the part of the petitioner therein, which can be held to have led to the pendency of the case for four years, appropriate relief was given for the petitioner therein to appear before the trial Court. The present case does not appear to be comparable on facts and each case has to be decided on its own facts and circumstances. As the order passed by the trial Court herein does not appear to be vitiated for any reason, the inherent jurisdiction, which is available only in the rarest of rare cases cannot be invoked. Sri Y.V.Srinivasan, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that in case of his surrender before the trail Court he may be subjected to detention for long without considering his request for bail. There need be no such apprehensions as the trial Court can be believed to consider any request for release on bail with all expedition and urgency that such a request deserves and the trial Court can be requested accordingly also. Therefore, if the petitioner surrenders before the trial Court or is produced before the trial Court on execution of a non-bailable warrant and if the petitioner makes a request to be released on bail, the trial Court shall consider the same on merits, in accordance with law, on the same day on which such a request is made. The Criminal Petition is ordered accordingly. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J 10th August 2009 KH