AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding, which has been held through video conferencing today at 10.30 A.M. They have no
complaint in respect to the audio and video clarity and quality.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioner, in this application, has challenged the order dated 18.01.2020, passed in S.T. Case No. 414 of 2019 (Kadma P.S. Case No. 93/2019,
G.R. No. 953/2019), by the Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Jamshedpur, by which the Court rejected his petition under Section 317 Cr.P.C. and issued
non-bailable warrant of arrest against him.
Mr. P.D. Agarwal, learned counsel for the State submits that some reason ought to have been assigned as to why the petition under Section 317
Cr.P.C has been rejected.
I have gone through the impugned order dated 18.01.2020. I find that without assigning any reason petition of the petitioner under Section 317 Cr.P.C.
has been rejected and, thereafter, his bail was cancelled. In a most cryptic manner, without assigning any reason, the impugned order has been
passed.
Thus, I am inclined to allow this application. Accordingly, this application is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.01.2020, passed in S.T. Case No.
414 of 2019 (Kadma P.S. Case No. 93/2019, G.R. No. 953/2019), by the Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Jamshedpur, is hereby quashed.
The petitioner is directed to remain on the same bail bond. Further, the petitioner will appear before the Court below on the next date fixed. If the
petitioner fails to appear on the next date, appropriate steps should be taken against him.