AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sheema Ali Khan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State.
The petitioners have challenged the order dated 20.01.2009 by which their application u/s 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been rejected. Accordingly, the bail bohds filed on behalf of the petitioners were cancelled and notices were issued to the bailors in this case.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that he was regularly appearing in this case and on an earlier occasion, the application u/s 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was allowed and thereafter the petitioners again filed his haziri and were appearing in this case.
The petitioners have filed an application u/s 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying therein to excuse them from appearing in the Court on 20.01.2009. Counsel challenges the order on the ground that not only the Court below rejected the application filed u/s 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but has also issued non-bailable warrant of arrest against them. It has been submitted that in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Sandeep Kumar Tekriwal v. The State of Bihar and Anr. reported in 2009 (2) PLJR 260, the Court below ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioners to show cause. Besides which Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not permit that the bail bonds should be cancelled and non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued by a composite order.
In any event, the petitioners are directed to appear before the Additional Sessions Judge 1, Ara within a period of four weeks from today and the Court below should allow them to remain on bail on the previous bail bonds. The petitioners are also directed to abide by any further directions issued by the Court below and also co-operate with the Court in the disposal of the case.
This application is thus allowed.