IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1116 of 2010 DR. JAGDISH SINGH S/O LATE BRAHMDEO SINGH, R/O VILLAGE KHAWASPUR, P.S. PIRPAINTI, DIST. BHAGALPUR. ---- PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, VIGILANCE INVESTIGATION BUREAU, 6, CIRCULAR ROAD, PATNA. --- OPP. PARTY. ----------- 03 09.08.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 12.07.2010, passed by learned Special-Judge, Vigilance North Bihar, Muzaffarpur, in Spl. Case no. 1 of 2004 (State vrs. Dr. Jagdish Singh and others). By the said order trial Court found that the petitioner is not in attendance and as such his bail bond(s) has been cancelled and a non bailable warrant of arrest has been directed to be issued. Background facts of the case may first be noticed. The petitioner along with others is facing aforesaid trial under diverse Sections of the P. C. Act. On 5.4.2010, the matter was fixed for hearing on the application preferred by the accuseds including the petitioner for discharge. Some of the accuseds were present in person in Court whereas the petitioner was represented through lawyer in terms of Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’). On the request of the prosecution, the matter was deferred to 21.04.2010. On 21.04.2007 all the accused including the petitioner were present in person in Court. The matter could not be taken up. Accordingly, it was again adjourned to 28.05.2010, for hearing on the application seeking 2 discharge. On 28.05.2010, some of the accuseds were present in person whereas representation on behalf of the petitioner in terms of Section 317 of the Code was filed which was allowed. The matter was again deferred to be taken up on 15.06.2010, and accuseds were directed to be present in person. On 15.06.2010, again an application under Section 317 of the Code on behalf of the petitioner was filed which was allowed for the day. The matter was again deferred for 12.07.2010 with a direction/observation that all the accuseds should be physically present. On 12.07.2010, it appears that when the case was taken up no representation on behalf of the petitioner even under Section 317 was filed. Consequently learned trial Court passed the impugned order. It further appears that subsequently a representation under Section 317 of the Code (Annexure-3) was filed which was directed to be kept on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the order impugned, relies on a judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Sandeep Kumar Tekriwal vrs. State of Bihar & Anr. 2009(2) PLJR 260. Particular reliance has been placed on paragraph nos. 16, 17 and 18 of the case. It is contended that learned trial Court has committed two mistakes. In the previous order dated 15.06.2010 it has not been observed clearly that on the next date no representation under Section 317 of the Code on behalf of the accuseds shall be entertained. It is next contended that cancelling bail bond(s) and issuing non bailable warrant of arrest by a composite order is not in accordance with law. Learned 3 counsel assures this Court that if the present order is interfered with and set aside and the petitioner is allowed to continue on the same bail bond(s), he shall appear in person on the next date(s) fixed by learned trial Court in the matter enabling the Court to dispose of the pending application and take steps thereafter in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the Vigilance, in view of the position of law adumbrated in Sandeep Kumar Tekriwal (supra), submits that petitioner may be directed to be present in person on the date(s) fixed by trial Court till framing of charge. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and after going through the materials available on record, this Court is satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the case the impugned order dated 12.07.2010, in so far as the same relates to cancellation of bail bond(s) and issuance of non bailable warrant against the petitioner is/are concerned, be interfered with and set aside. This Court accordingly set aside the order dated 12.07.2010 passed by learned Special Judge, Vigilance North Bihar, Muzaffarpur, in Special case no.1 of 2004 ( Vigilance P.S. Case no. 4 of 2004), with the following directions/observations:- (i) The petitioner shall appear in person on the date(s) fixed by trial Court in the present case till disposal of the application filed under Section 227 of the Code and/or framing of the charge. In case of default in such appearance in person, the trial Court 4 shall have liberty to cancel the bail bond(s) of the petitioner and take recourse to the provision of law for securing his arrest. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)