- (1.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State. It appears that on 5.2.2013, when the matter was posted for evidence before the charge, an application was filed under Section 317 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioners, which was rejected by the court below and consequently, an order was passed for issuance of warrant of arrest.
(2.) That order is under challenge.
(3.) Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that on 5.2.2013, a representation was filed by these petitioners, which was rejected and straightaway warrant of arrest was ordered to be issued, though the court, in terms of the provision as contained Section 317(2) Cr.P.C. should have asked these petitioners to remain present physically, if it appears to the court that their presence is required, but without resorting to that provision, the court straightaway rejected the application and cancelled the bail bond and then passed an order for issuance of warrant of arrest non-bailable, which order, in view of the aforesaid situation, is quite bad.;