IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.38461 of 2008 Balram Kumar Singh, son of Shri Amar Singh, Managing Director, Bihar Computer Software & Diagnostics Limited, resident of Road No. 14, East Ashok Nagar, Lane No.5, PS Kankarbagh, Dist. Patna – petitioner. Vs. 1. The State of Bihar, 2. Amit Kumar, son of Late Jagarnath Rajak, Road No.1, Chandmari Road, PS Kankarbagh, District Patna – opposite parties. 2 11.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner is the Managing Director of Bihar Computer Software & Diagnostics Limited. At the time when the complaint was filed, he was posted in Patna. Cognizance was taken in this case on 10.2.2004. The petitioner challenged the order of cognizance which was dismissed for default on 24.11.2005. Again the petitioner filed Cr. Misc. No. 3643/2006 and stay was granted on 8.2.2006. After grant of stay, counsel for the petitioner did not appear in court and as such stay was vacated and finally the case was dismissed for non- prosecution. Unfortunately for the petitioner on the third attempt, again the case came to be dismissed for non-appearance of the counsel. In the mean time the petitioner had also filed an application on 30.12.2004 under section 205 Cr.P.C. for exempting his personal appearance. The court below rejected the petition. The petitioner challeng3d the order by filing Cr. Misc. No. 21562/2005 which was finally disposed of on 29.7.2005. This court while disposing of the application filed against the order rejecting the petition under section 205 Cr.P.C., passed the following order : 2 “It appears that the order of the court below declaring the petitioner as absconder is not supported by any reason before proclaiming absconder under section 82 of the Code. The court below must have reason to believe that person has absconded or is concealing himself, so that such warrant cannot be executed on him. “In this case, there was application filed on behalf of the petitioner for dispensing with his personal appearance which was not disposed of by the court below and as such the court below has no reason to believe that petitioner was absconding for hiding as the petition under section 205 of the Code was pending. The order of court below declaring the petitioner absconder and issuing process under section 82 of the Code is not in accordance with law as such the impugned order dated 21.12.2004 is hereby quashed.” The court then directed that the application under section 205 of the Code should be disposed of within three months from the date of receipt of the order. The impugned order was, thus, passed on 21.2.2005 rejecting the petition under section 205 of the Code. 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. This order has been challenged after three years. In the mean time it appears that the petitioner did not take any steps to obtain bail or to make an appearance in court and sat at Delhi without bothering about the consequences. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it appears that at all stages, the case had been mishandled, and as such the petitioner has suffered. 3 Ordinarily the courts in the facts of this case may have made exemption and allowed the petition under section 205 of the Code if the petitioner had appeared at the first instance or even if he had been granted bail, in view of the fact that the petitioner was living at Delhi and holding responsible post and that the petitioner was expected to act with responsibility considering the nature of his job and the post which he was/is holding. However, in the facts of this case the petitioner has acted in a very careless manner and did not pursue the legal remedy available to him in a proper manner and as such it cannot be said that he would be entitled for exemption from appearance under section 205 of the Code. Accordingly this court directs that the petitioner should appear in court and the court should take into account all the facts sympathetically and pass appropriate orders in this case. After the petitioner appears in the court in pursuance of summon / warrant of arrest, appropriate orders will be passed releasing him on bail on taking an undertaking from him on affidavit that he would be cooperating with the court in future. The petitioner would have the liberty thereafter to file a fresh petition under section 205 of the Code. Such an order is subject to the fact that the petitioner would appear in court within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of order. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. 4 Counsel for the petitioner may deposit the cost of Fax for communicating this order to the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 2344© of 2003. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)