- (1.) THE petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the order impugned dated 23.9.2010 by which warrant of arrest was directed to be issued against him after cancelling his bail bond.
(2.) THE petitioner was admitted to bail by the order of the court below on 10.8.2006 for the alleged offence under section 85(3) of the Employees State Insurance Act The petitioner remained in attendance either in person or represented through his counsel under section 317 of Cr.P.C before the trial court which would be evident from the order dated 14.7.2009. Mr. R.S. Majaumdar, the learned Sr. counsel pointed out that all on a sudden the record of C-III 118 of 2005, which was pending before a regular court of the Judicial Magistrate Ist class, Ranchi was taken over by the Incharge court which would be evident from the order sheets from 18.9.2008 to 14.7.2009 and thereafter the record was transferred in the court of Sri.V.C. Pandey,Judicial Magistrate, by order dated 9.8.2010/13.11.2009 Again the case record was transferred by order dated 25.8.2010 from the court of Sri. V.C. Pandey to the court of Judicial Magistrate without disclosing the name of the transferee court. Mr. R.S. Majumdar, the learned Sr. Counsel explained that neither any communication was given to the petitioner nor to his counsel about such transfer of the records in succession on two consecutive dates and the petitioner being quite ignorant did not appear in the court and hence the order without appreciation of above facts.The absence of the petitioner from the court was neither intentional nor deliberate. Mr. Rajan Raj, the learned counsel strongly opposed and submitted that efficacious and alternative remedy was available to the petitioner for obtaining bail under section 437 of Cr.P.C.
(3.) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the records were transferred from one court to another court in quick sucession by giving vague dat es before recording ordcers.Even no communication was made to the counsel of the petitioner after transfer of the record and the impugned order was passed the first date of the receipt of the record.The impugned order therefore, cannot be sustained in law .Accordingly, the order dated 23.9.2010 recorded in C III 118 of 2005 is set aside. However, the petitioner is directed to file fresh bail bond to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned and directed to appear before the court regularly.;