- (1.) R. K. Rastogi, J. This is an application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. to quash the impugned order dated 11-1-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/fast Track Court No. 2, Azamgarh passed in Sessions Trial No. 18 of 1993, State v. Ram Bahore, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 352 and 307, I. P. C. police station Rani Ki Sarai District Azamgarh.
(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the applicants and learned A. G. A. for the State. The facts relevant for disposal of this application are that the aforesaid sessions trial is pending in the above Court and date 11-1-2007 was fixed in the case. On that date accused Arvind was present with his Counsel, and the remaining accused Vijay Bahadur, Shamsher, Sarakchand, Subhash, Randhir, Raghunath, Smt. Radha Devi and Smt. Salari Devi were absent. An application for exemption on their behalf was moved, but the Presiding Officer of the Court concerned was of the view that the above case as well as its cross case which were of the year 1993 were pending in his Court for evidence but the accused persons were delaying the proceedings of the case, hence, he rejected the application for exemption holding that they were mis-using bail and cancelled their bail bonds. He took accused Arvind present in Court in judicial custody and sent him to jail and passed orders for issuing non-bailable warrants and processes under Sections 82 and 83 Cr. P. C. against the remaining accused and also issued orders for issuing notice to the sureties fixing 19-1-2007. Aggrieved with that order applicants have filed this application. In this petition complainant Ant Lal has also been impleaded as O. P. No. 2 but since it is a State case there is no necessity to hear him. The learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that he wants to delete the name of O. P. No. 2 and he is permitted to do so.
(3.) IT is true that the cases were of the year 1993 and when the aforesaid S. T. and its cross sessions trial were pending in the same Court, both these cases should have been listed for evidence on the same date in the Court so that accused as well as witnesses in both the cases may appear in the Court and evidence may be recorded in both the above sessions trials in presence of the parties. The Presiding Officer of the Court concerned was of the view the accused were misusing the bail and so he cancelled their bail bonds. He could do so, but there was no provision for taking that accused into judicial custody and sending him to jail, who was present in Court. The Presiding Officer is not justified in this regard. In such a case the proper order would have been to grant exemption for that date only with a direction to all the accused to appear in person in the Court on the next date further providing that no request for exemption shall be entertained on the next date and non-bailable warrant shall be issued against the defaulting accused, and in this way the delaying tactics could be lawfully curbed. It further appears that on the above date Presiding Officer further passed an order for issuing non- bailable warrants and processes under Sections 82 and 83, Cr. P. C. simultaneously against the accused persons. He again committed legal error because all these processes cannot be issued simultaneously. The warrant is to be issued at the first instance and when the accused does not appear in Court even after issue of warrant, the process under Section 82, Cr. P. C. can be issued only when there is a report to this effect that he is absconding. After issuing proclamation under Section 82, Cr. P. C. the Court has to wait for thirty days from the date of publication of proclamation and then attachment under Section 83, Cr. P. C. is to be issued. But if the Court is of the view that the accused is about to dispose of the whole or any part of his property or is about to remove the whole or any part of his property from the local jurisdiction of the Court, the proclamation under Section 82, Cr. P. C. and attachment under Section 83, Cr. P. C. can be issued simultaneously. In such a case, the Court must be satisfied on the basis of evidence produced before it that these circumstances exist and he has to mention these facts in the order for issuing processes under Sections 82 and 83 Cr. P. C. simultaneously.;