IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.22933 of 2009 RAM BADAN RAI, SON OF LATE BAHORE RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – RACHIAHI, P.S. – MATIHANI, DISTRICT – BEGUSARAI ............................................... PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. MUNKI DEVI, W/O. RAMESHWAR RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – RACHIAHI, PURNA TOAL, P.S. – MATIHANI, DISTRICT – BEGUSARAI – (COMPLAINANT). ………… OPPOSITE PARTY ----------- 03/ 20.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the APP appearing on behalf of the State. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 16.04.2009 by which the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Begusarai has directed for execution of warrant of arrest in Sessions Trial No. 375A of 1990 arising out of Complaint Case no. 27C of 1987. The petitioner is an accused in a case under Sections 436/34 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code along with 11 accused persons. The petitioner appeared before the Court below and was granted bail and then the case remained pending for several years. Finally, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for its trial on 14.11.1990 and was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Begusarai on 06.03.1998. The charges were framed on 4.4.2002 and the 2 trial of the petitioner was split up as 11 accused persons appeared in this case and the petitioner who is a politician did not appear in the case on 4.4.2000. On 23.01.2004, all other co- accused were acquitted from the charges levelled against them in this case and the record was sent to the record room. It appears that along with the records of Sessions Trial No. 375 of 1990 relating to 11 other accused persons, the records with respect to this petitioner being Sessions Trial No. 375A of 1990 was also sent to the record room and at that time, an order was passed to issue warrant of arrest against this petitioner, however that remained with the records and was never issued from the office of the court below. It appears that a stranger to the entire proceedings in this case literally on the eve of election has filed an application that warrant of arrest should be executed. It appears that the bail bonds of this petitioner were cancelled and a warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after commitment, no summons was issued to the petitioner and therefore, he had no knowledge that he had to appear in this case. Eventually, on the application of a stranger warrant of arrest was issued. The court below passed an order for executing 3 the warrant of arrest. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to surrender before the court below to face trial. Considering the fact that summons were never issued to the petitioner after the commitment of the case and that the petitioner is ready to appear before the court below, I direct that the warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner should remain stayed for a period of three months. In the mean time, the petitioner should appear on the next date fixed before the court below to face trial in this case with a copy of this order. The Court below is also directed to take steps in accordance with law on the appearance of the petitioner taking into consideration that no notices were issued against the petitioner after commitment of the case. I am supported in my conclusion by a judgment in the case of Yogesh Kumar Bhargava Vs. The State of U. P. reported in 2001 Cr. Law Journal 2835. This application is thus disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. kundan (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)