IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.143 of 2009 1. Keshav Kishore Chaudhary 2. Om Prakash Chaudhary s/o Keshav Kishore Chaudhary 3. Jai Prakash Chaudhary s/0 Keshav Kishore Chaudhary All residents of village Dariyapur Kafen, P.S. Kurhani, Turki (O.P.), Muzaffarpur Versus State Of Bihar & Anr ----------- For the petitioners: Dr. Alok Kumar Alok, Advocate For the State : PP 3 28/4/2009 This writ petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 17.10.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class , Muzaffarpur in connection with Trial no.556 of 2008 arising out of Kurhani P.S. Case no.102 of 2000 for the offence under sections 341, 323, 324, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is the case of the petitioner that they were granted bail as per order dated 12.6.2000. Thereafter, the case was posted on many dates , that is, 11.10.2002, 3.1.2003, 13.2.2003, 8.3.2003 & 30.4.2003 and on all those dates the petitioners appeared before the court below but the witnesses did not appear. Bailable warrant was issued against the witnesses on 18.11.2003 and 18.11.2003 and in spite of that they did not appear. Subsequently 2 also on many dates the petitioners remained present in the court but witnesses did not appear. On 30.9.2005 one of the witnesses appeared but the case was deferred to another date due to lack of time. Thereafter on 17.10.2005 a petition under section 317 Cr. P. C. was filed on behalf of the petitioners but on that day one witness appeared in the court and on call being made since nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioners to cross- examine the witness the bail bonds of the petitioners were cancelled and non-bailable warrant was issued against them. Contention of the petitioner is that the magistrate while rejecting application under section 317 Cr.P.C. cannot at the same time cancel bail bond and issue non-bailable warrant of arrest without notice. In support of the said submission he has cited a decision of this court rendered in the case of Sandeep Kumar Tekriwal vs. State of Bihar, 2008 (3) PCCR 113. In any event, we are of the view that before cancelling the bail bonds of the petitioners, they should have been heard after giving notices to them and since 3 the petitioners were not heard before cancelling the bail bonds the order dated 17.10.2005 does not deserve to be sustained and, accordingly, it is set aside. The petitioners are directed to appear before the court below on the next hearing date and offer explanation for their absence. They should continue to be present on each and every date being fixed by the court so that delay in disposal of trial is avoided. With the aforesaid observation, this application is allowed. Neyaz/ (J. B. Koshy, CJ.)