IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P.No. 2647 of 2017 Fitu Sk @ Noor Alam S/o Late Baidul Sk., R/o Arjunpur, P.O.+P.S. Farraka, District-Murshidabad (West Bengal) …. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …. … Opp. Party --------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA For the Petitioner : Ms. Kabisha Goenka, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agarwal, Spl. P.P. --------- Order No. 09/ dated 08.01.2025 Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Spl. P.P. for the State. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition has been filed challenging the order of issuance of warrant of arrest against the petitioner in S.T. No. 70 of 2014 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Rajmahal wherein the case was pending at the stage of commitment and due to non-appearance of the petitioner, his bail bond was cancelled rejecting the representation application under Section 317 of Cr.P.C. and N.B.W. was issued against the petitioner. 3. It is further submitted that thereafter the case has been committed to the Court of sessions where S.T.No.70 of 2014 has been registered but the learned Counsel has got no knowledge about the present stage of the proceeding before the Sessions Court. 4. On the other hand, the learned Spl. P.P. has submitted that the impugned order itself shows that on earlier occasion, the 2 petitioner was directed to physically appear before the concerned Court of Magistrate for the purpose of commitment of the case under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. but he did not turn up. Therefore, his representation application was rejected and bail bond was also cancelled. Now the case has been committed to the Court of sessions and this petition has become infructuous. 5. I have gone through the impugned order which reveals that it was passed in the year 2008. Due to non-appearance of the petitioner in spite of specific direction issued by the Court to be present physically for the purpose of commitment of the case and no valid reason was offered by the petitioner for his absence in spite of specific order of the Court. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order of issuing warrant of arrest against the petitioner. Moreover, the case has been committed to the Court of sessions and S.T. No. 70 of 2014 is still pending and the petitioner has not brought on record the up-to-date status of the case. 6. Under the aforementioned circumstances, this petition stands dismissed. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) P.K.S.