2: iSingie Benc ' '_H._o_N_‘_B_L_E. aw COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASQMB; m THE HON‘ BLE HIGH CR.M.P No“ §1L§ [2t»:g.w;;. PFTITIO&ER§S_: 1. Amit Kumar Tiwari, S/o Shri Babunji Tiwari, Aged about 26 years, R/o Metggda, District Bastar, C.G. Vinod Kumar Tiwari, S/o Shri Babunji Tiwari, Aged about 30 years, R/o Rwmw Rig Sm Ea“. RR. Vi -&-" " ‘ Metguda, District Bastar, C.G. VERSUS Wm (K? 2’ gggegpommm; State of Chhattisgarh, Through the District Magistrate, North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh l‘fiE-EJil—LANEOU 5 PETITION UL5_‘i&Z;QEJ.|‘lE_CQQ~E.QiEQEMlMiMu EROQEDURE" $ h ‘ 311% 1m: (Wu) mm w?w§n $aifwam {WWW-31m: Commodities Aci, the oetmoners n; ‘ Em E : Hon’bie $hri Manindra Mohan Ehrivastava ‘ S J. 14=Q9=2911 Shri Aiok Dewangan, counsei the petitioners. ivis. Sunita Jain. Panei Lawyer for the $tate. Heard. This petition has been fiied 1y the petitioriers aggrieved by order daieoi 18/08ii'i passed by the Sessions udge, Kanker in criminai revision No.3iii’i whereby order dated 11/472011 pa ed by the Magistrate directing issuance of warrant of arrest, has been affirmed. Learned counsei for the petitiéners submitted that in connection with crime NaEOiHO alieging commission of Section 406‘ 4'20. 468, 4?1/34 and 1 O-B of IPC and Section 3, 7 of the Essential ere arrested. Thereafter, vide order dated 1i1zr2u10, the petitioners were ganted baii and since then the petitioners remained in baii and fuiiy co—operat d with the investigation and appeared before the poiice as and when noticed. he petitioners were noticed by the poiice te anpear before the Magistrate on 1 [0312811 and 2&103/2U11. He submits that though the petitioners appeared in police station on 24/02i2Gt1, t4f3/‘2011 and Zd/U'al'2011, the charge sheet was not submitted and thereafter, they did not receive any notice for appearance n 11i04/2011, on which date. charge sheet was fiied in the Court and learned agistrate recording that the petitioners have faiied to appear, issued warrant of arrest. ffence under $ection 41 (1+ 4) CrF’C and ' He submits that after the bait was granted to the petitioners on 1/1 2i? 10, the petitioners tuiiy co—operated with the investigation and appeared on aii es, as and when noticed and there was no intention on the part of the petition rs to abscond. He further submitted that the Court beiow issued warrant of arres without considering the tact that as and when MO—2/201 l—l,50,000. a a w r I t‘ d t t/ WWW wmm WWW ~Q~ notice was iswed, the petitioners a reason or the ’are wiirii'n‘g to appie‘a ore the Mag Gn the othe‘ hand, iearne " *passed bythe-Revisionai Caur’t, it 7- poiice of poiice‘ stétiéhiBhanuprata $Qbmission ’ofp‘hargESheet in the theréfore, t‘né magisiréie justified in: t i WW @I&ER %3ifvrqai1%w by the poiice for p goingihreugh the order passed b) consideration that the revisional Cc remain present before the triai Cc without further going into the matte petitioners shaii now appear befor appiy for grant of reguiar baii, upc and conditions. as mayrbe impose: the trial. vv With the aforesaidpbservati ms: the petition is tinaiiy disposed of" A Deepii i L nimtia min WV, (Kira We “ts/Ho—z/zm 1—‘1 ,50,000. opeareci but the charge sheet couid not be tiiect other. He further submits that the petitioners iistrate. :i State counsei submits that from the oreier s ciear that the petitioners were noticed by the )pur to appear on iii4/20tt in connection with Court but the petitioners did not appear and issuing warrant of arrest Taking into consideration the; submissions which have been made and after r the iearned Court beiow and aiso taking into urt had aiso granted iiberty to the petitioners to urt on 25f08i201it and appiy for grant of ioaii, r, in the interest of jostice, it is ordered that the a the concerned Magistrate on 28f09i261‘t and n which they shaii be reieased on such terms i by the Magistrate for their appearance during / Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge y _ef