IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRL.P.No.4361 OF 2011 Date:13.06.2011 Between:- B.Sailesh Saxena .. Petitioner/A-2 And The State of A.P., Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. ..Respondents ORDER:- The petitioner is the second accused in C.C.No.119 of 2011 on the file of the Court of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad (Trial Court). The offences alleged are those punishable under Sections 447, 427 and 506 I.P.C. The allegations made in the charge sheet do disclose offences. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to some previous suits and also some other litigations between the parties and he further argued that the petitioner is an Advocate of the first accused in the case and there is a litigation between first accused and the de facto complainant and that is the reason for adding the petitioner in this case. 3. May be what the petitioner’s Counsel says is true, but this question has to be decided on evidence and it cannot be decided in this petition. Hence, this petition is dismissed. 4. Parting with the matter, the learned Counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice that the petitioner is a practicing Advocate and he is innocent and he has got various problems in attending the trial Court regularly on every date of hearing personally. 5. In the circumstances and having regard to the submissions made by the petitioner’s counsel, the presence of the petitioner on every date of hearing before the trial Court is dispensed with and he can be represented by a Counsel. It is open for the trial Court to order the presence of the petitioner before it as and when it considers his presence necessary. _____________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR, J 13th June, 2011 AMD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRL.P.No.4361 OF 2011 Date:13.06.2011 AMD