Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned/counsel appearing for the State. This application is directed against the order dated 26 -07 -2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Palamu in connection with Hussainabad PS. Case No. 36 of 2009 (G.R. No. 399 of 2009), whereby and whereunder warrant of arrest was ordered to be issued and also against the order dated 05 -12 -2012, whereby and whereunder, processes under Sections 82 and 83 have been ordered to be issued against the petitioner.
(2.) MR . I. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in course of trial, the petitioner was being represented through his lawyer, but on 26 -07 -2012, neither the I petitioner did appear nor any application un -1 der Section 317 Cr.P.C. was filed and hence, 1 the court did cancel the bail bond and passed an order for issuance of warrant of arrest, non -bailable, which order is not in consonance of the provision as contained in Section 317(2) Cr.P.C. If the petitioner did not appear on the date fixed, the court should have fixed a date for physical appearance of the petitioner but the court without directing the petitioner to appear physically on the next date, straight away cancelled the bail bond and thereby, order dated 26 -07 -2012 is quite illegal. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the order dated 05 -12 -2012 is also illegal, as without having any report, regarding execution of the warrant of arrest, processes were issued simultaneously, under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C.
(3.) HOWEVER , learned counsel appearing for the State submits that since the accused did not appear on the date fixed, the bail bond was cancelled and warrant of arrest was ordered to be issued and, thereby, the court did not commit any illegality.;