IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.586 of 2011 LALL BABU DHOBI SON OF LAL CHAND DHOBI, R/O- VILLAGE SANDHILA, P.S.- BUXAR (M), DISTRICT- BUXAR. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR For the petitioner : Mr. Jagdish Prasad, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Matloob Rab, APP ----------- 2 17.05.2011 Heard both sides. Petitioner was facing prosecution under Sections 498A and 494 of Indian Penal Code. He was serving as a washerman in a laundry at Delhi. As soon as, he became cognizant of the pendency of the complaint filed by his estranged wife, he appeared and applied for bail which was refused. Aggrieved by the said order, he approached the Sessions Court. The matter was heard by learned Additional Sessions Judge and by an order dated 5.9.2009 passed in B.P. No. 630 of 2009, he was directed to be released on bail with the following conditions “…..with condition that the Accused-petitioner will appear in lower Court physically on each and every date fixed in the case and no petition u/s 317 Cr.P.C. will be entertained and if in any date accused person absent in Court below then his bail bond shall be automatically cancelled.” The petitioner continued to appear as per the said order in the proceeding on each date. Ultimately, on 31.3.2011, application was filed seeking modification in the conditions of bail. This is what the petitioner asserted in the said application. “That this petitioner is a wage earner and he used to work as an employee in laundry in 2 Delhi. His continuous absence from laundry is telling hard upon him and his services are likely to be dismissed. In that case this petitioner may be exposed to starvation.” The said application has been rejected by the successor in office of A.D.J.-I, Buxar observing as under:- “ I am of the view that it would not be legal and proper for the Court to relax or modify the order passed earlier ( by a different Presiding Officer). I think the petitioner, if he was aggrieved with the condition, should have gone to a higher court way earlier for modification of the condition.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the conditions are onerous and as such they are required to be relaxed since the petitioner is serving at Delhi for earning his livelihood. It is submitted that the petitioner shall appear on the date especially fixed for his personal appearance and in default of such appearance, the Court may be given liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner. After having heard the parties, this Court is persuaded to modify the conditions of bail granted by learned Additional Sessions Judge in B.P. No. 630 of 2009 in the following manner: Petitioner shall appear in person on the date fixed especially therefor by the Court below. In case of default in such appearance, the Trial Court shall cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner and secure his arrest in accordance with law. On the date other than fixed for his personal appearance, the petitioner shall be allowed to 3 appear through his lawyer. The application stands disposed of. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J)