IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.734 of 2011 Sintu Singh @ Sintu Kumar son of Awadh singh, resident Kumar, Police Station Sikandara, district Jamui. Versus The State Of Bihar ----------- 3 08.07.2011 Heard Mr. Sanjeev Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Md. Mustak Alam, learned counsel for the State. The accused-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 15.11.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C IV, Lakhisarai by which Cr. Appeal No. 91 of 2009 has been dismissed for non- prosecution. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he has filed the aforesaid Cr. Appeal No. 91 of 2009 in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Munger on 16.09.2009. The appeal was admitted by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 22.10.2009 and the case was adjourned lastly on 24.07.2010. The case was adjourned to 25.08.2010 prior to that date, it appears that the record of Cr. Appeal was transferred to the Court of 2 Additional Sessions Judge F.T.C. IV by the learned Sessions Judge. This order could not come to the notice of the appellant as such he could not make any pairvi in the appeal due to the lack of knowledge. The petitioner could not appear in the appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge F.T.C IV at Lakhisarai and it has been dismissed for default by the impugned order. He has further submitted that the petitioner was granted provisional bail by the learned trial Court which has been confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge. After the rejection of the appeal, the petitioner has surrendered in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Kiul on 15th of June 2011 and since then he has been in custody. He has also made prayer that the petitioner be released on bail. The learned counsel for the State could not controvert the contention of the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of 3 Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Railway Judicial Magistrate in R.P.F Kiul Case No. 1 of 2002 with a condition that one of the bailors must be close relative of the petitioner with further condition that the petitioner will not involve in similar or any other offences and he will be well represented before the learned appellate Court, in case of non representation of the petitioner before the appellate Court, the bail bond will be cancelled by the appellate Court. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the order sheet, the certified copy of the order sheet of the aforesaid Cr. Appeal it appears that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. Considering the facts and circumstances, the impugned order is not fit to be sustained. Hence the impugned order is set aside. The Cr. Appeal No. 91 of 2009 is remanded to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C IV, Lakhisarai for hearing and the petitioner 4 will pursue his appeal before the learned appellate Court in accordance with law. The revision application is allowed with the aforesaid direction. Prakash ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)