- (1.) This application is directed against the order dated 26.08.2015 passed in Complaint Case no.203/2009 by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla whereby the bail bond of the petitioner was cancelled.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it would be evident from the impugned order that out of 16 accused only one was physically present and of the rest 15, except the petitioner, were represented under Section 317 Cr.P.C. That the learned counsel for the petitioner did not file the representation under Section 317. On the contrary he submitted that he was not taking any steps in the case on behalf of the petitioner, whereupon the court has cancelled the bail bond of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner was under the bonafide belief that the Advocate engaged by him would be taking proper steps on his behalf as he had not revoked the vakalatnama given by him to the concerned Advocate. It is submitted that the court below without noticing the petitioner or issuing any direction for appearance of the petitioner cancelled the bail bond of the petitioner merely on the submission of the counsel. The court should have appreciated that there was no willful default on the part of the petitioner and the learned Advocate should have informed the petitioner that he would not be representing him in the case. On the above grounds it is argued that the impugned order is fit to be set aside.
(3.) Learned A.P.P., while opposing, has not controverted the fact that it was due to non-representation of the case by the Advocate of the petitioner that the bail bond of the petitioner has been cancelled.;