UDAYANATH MOHANTY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. D.P. Dhal, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. G.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate. Perused the orders dated 7.12.1998 and 4.1.1999 passu by the learned Asst. Sessions Judge - cum - C.J.M., Ganjam - Berhampur in S.C. No. 92/97 (S.C. 245/97 GDC) and copy of the final judgment passed therein, which was filed by the counsel for the Petitioner in course of hearing.

(2.) THE case of the Petitioner is that he stood a bailor for one Ramesh Mohanty, one of the accused in S.C. No. 92 of 1997 (S.C. 245 of 1997 -GDC) on the file of the Asst. Sessions Judge -cum -C.J.M., Ganjam -Berhampur, who was granted bail by a Bench of this Court in CRMC No. 3530 of 1997 by order dated 1.12.1997 with one of the conditions that he shall attend the trial court on each date that will be fixed by the trial court, failing which, the said order of bail shall stand automatically cancelled and the bail amount and the property security shall be forfeited forthwith. On 20.11.1998, due to his ill -health, said accused Ramesh Mohanty failed to appear before the trial court and, although counsel appearing for him filed a petition to condone his absence, the trial court rejected the said petition and issued non -bailable warrant of arrest against him. On the very next day i.e. on 21.11.1998 accused -Ramesh Mohanty surrendered and moved an application for bail. The said application having been rejected by the trial court on 21.11.1998, the Petitioner again moved this Court by filing an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in Crl. Misc. Case No. 5198 of 1998. While disposing of the said application by order dated 2.12.1998 a Bench of this Court directed that if accused Ramesh Mohanty would file an application under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure, the trial court shall do well to allow him to be released on bail on such terms and conditions as it would deem just and proper which shall include condition for personal appearance on each date. When the matter stood thus, the present Petitioner filed an application on 15.12.1998 under Section 444 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to discharge him from suretyship and to return his documents. The trial court by order dated 4.1.1999 rejected the said application by observing that as it was the mandate of this Court that upon violation of any of the conditions of the bail order, the bail bonds as well as property security would stand automatically forfeited, and directed to start a misc. case under Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the present Petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner has approached this Court in the present revision.

(3.) MR . G.K. Mohanty, learned Addl. Government Advocate vehemently opposed the submission of the counsel for the Petitioner and submitted that in the mandate of this Court, the trial court is justified in directing forfeiture of security and initiating proceedings under Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure