IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1468 of 2024 1. Sudarshan Kumar, Aged about 35 years, Son of Prahlad Ram, Resident of Village Amritnagar, P.O. Hazaribagh, P.S. Muffassil, District Hazaribagh (Jharkhand). 2. Sushil Kumar, Aged about 35 years, Son of Prahlad Ram, Resident of Village Amritnagar, P.O. Hazaribag, P.S. Muffassil, District Hazaribag (Jharkhand). … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Dev, Adv. For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, Addl. P.P. Order No.04/Dated- 07.01.2025 Heard Mr. Rahul Dev, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. 2. The present criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 29.11.2023 passed by learned Additional District Judge-IV, Hazaribag in S.T. Case No.52 of 2023, whereby and whereunder at the stage of framing of charge and application of the petitioners under Section 317 Cr.P.C. has been rejected by the concerned learned Trial Court and his bail bond was cancelled and it was ordered to issue non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners assailing the impugned order has submitted that just prior two days, the direction was given to the petitioners to appear physically before the Court for hearing on the point of charge, but the petitioners could not appear and on the same day, their representation was rejected as well as warrant of arrest was also issued against the petitioners. Hence, impugned order is not duly sustainable in the eyes of law and fit to be set aside. 4. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the above submissions and submitted that there is no rule that when the case is fixed for framing of charge and without any reason accused remains absent for successive dates. He will deserve the privilege of bail to be maintained, therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order calling for any interference in this petition which is fit to be dismissed. 5. Upon perusal of the case record along with impugned order in light of the contentions raised on behalf of both side, it appears that the case was first fixed for hearing on the point of charge on 20.04.2023. Thereafter on 16.05.2023, 02.06.2023 05.07.2023, 24.07.2023, 14.08.2023, 31.08.2023, 20.09.2023 and 11.10.2023 representation of accused persons were presented under Section 217 Cr.P.C. which was allowed. The petition in all dates were allowed only for that date and with condition to physical appearance on the next date so that hearing on the point of charge may be concluded. It further transpires that on 29.11.2023, in spite of specific direction of the concerned Trial Court, the petitioners did not appear and again file their representation petition without disclosing any reasonable cause for non-appearance. Therefore, the representation application was rejected and order was passed for issuance of non-bailable warrant after cancellation of their bail bond. 6. In the aforementioned circumstances, the Court was constant to pass the stunned order with a view to securing the attendance of the petitioners, I do not find any valid reason for interference in the impugned order. Therefore, this petition is dismissed. 7. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned learned Trial Court for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Sachin