- (1.) THE petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the quashment of the order impugned dated 22.03.2011 passed in Sessions Trial No.182/188 of 2009 by 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Bokaro arising out of Chas Muffasil P.S. Case No.24 of 2009, corresponding to G.R.No.398 of 2009 by which the bail order of the petitioners were cancelled after rejecting their representation petition filed under Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(2.) IT is stated that the petitioners Bhaduri Rajwar and Sunil Rajwar were admitted to bail by the order of this Court in B.A.No.4060 of 2009 on 23.06.2009 with the conditions that the bailers would be their near relatives and that they would appear in the court below regularly but no condition was imposed with respect to the petitioner Bhikhu Rajwar while granting bail to him in separate B.A.No.3149 of 2009 on 23.05.2009 . It is reflected from the order impugned dated 22.03.2011 that representation petition was filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 317 Code of Criminal Procedure but when the case was called out and that in spite of repeated calls when non -appeared to move the representation petition of the petitioners and upon perusal of their representation petition no cogent ground could be reflected to the subjective satisfaction of the Court, their bail bond was cancelled with the observation that the High Court had directed the accused Sunil Rajwar and Bhaduri Rajwar to remain physically present on the date fixed. Learned Counsel pointed out that though the petitioners Sunil Rajwar and Bhaduri Rajwar were directed to remain physically present but not on the date fixed. The interpretation of the observation made by this Court may well be inferred that the petitioners were not asked to remain physically present on each and every date. Usually this Court directs the accused either to remain physically present or to be represented through laweyers under Section 317 Code of Criminal Procedure and in this case the petitioners have not violated any term/terms of bail imposed by this Court and therefore, the impugned order needs interference with the liberty to petitioners to surrender and face the trial. I find from the order impugned that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not satisfied with the grounds taken in the representation petition filed on behalf of the petitioners and that too when the case was called out repeatedly , none appeared on behalf of the petitioners to press the representation petition and therefore, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned.
(3.) BUT taking the considered view, the petitioners are directed to surrender in the Trial Court positively by 16th June, 2011 and on presentation of their petition under Section 437 Code of Criminal Procedure before the Court concerned it may be considered by imposing conditions by the Trial Court.;