[ 2025:JHHC:34441] 1 Cr.M.P. No. 1794 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1794 of 2025 Jyoti Dey @ Jyoti Devi aged about 34 years, wife of Mukesh Dey, daughter of Dilip Modi, resident of Village + P.O. and P.S. Deodanr, District Godda, Address of maternal home father of Dilip Modi, resident of Village Bangalipara, Patna Chowk, P.O. and P.S. Barharwa, District-Sahibganj ...... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opposite Party For the Petitioner : Mr. Satyam Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar, GA III P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 with the prayer for quashing and setting aside the order dated 16.03.2024 passed by learned SDJM, Godda by which, consequent upon the non-appearance of the petitioner in the court concerned, in connection with G.R. no. 1212 of 2015 from the date fixed i.e. on 16.03.2024 and the co-accused persons, expressing their ignorance about the whereabouts of the petitioner and as no steps was taken by her, even though she was on bail and executed bail bond undertaking to remain present in the court concerned on each of the dates, to which the same was fixed by learned SDJM, as the case was fixed for recording the statement under Section 313 of the CrPC, separated the case of the petitioner and the recorded the statement under Section 313 of the CrPC of the co-accused persons, and directed the office to issue non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner. 3. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that G.R. no. 1212 of 2015 of the court of learned SDJM, Godda was fixed to [ 2025:JHHC:34441] 2 Cr.M.P. No. 1794 of 2025 13.03.2024 and in that case, the petitioner and her mother –in-law appeared before the court of learned SDJM and filed a petition for representation and the case was fixed to 16.03.2024 for recording of the statement under Section 313 of the CrPC. It is next submitted that the petitioner had no knowledge about the case was fixed on 16.03.2024. It is next submitted that learned SDJM, Godda has acquitted the co-accused persons vide the judgment dated 18.03.2024. it is next submitted that due to negligence of the co-accused persons, the petitioner is suffering from irreparable loss and the petitioner has no efficacious remedy left except to move before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is lastly submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 4. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner and submits that once the petitioner was on bail and has undertaken to appear before the court on all the dates to which the case would be fixed in future and only upon furnishing such undertaking in the shape of bail bond, she was released on bail, so it was incumbent upon the petitioner to remain present and the consequence of the non appearance is that the bail is to be cancelled and non bailable warrant of arrest is to be issued; which has rightly been done by learned SDJM. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit, be dismissed. 5. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the undisputed fact remains that the petitioner was admitted to bail upon her furnishing the bail bond upon undertaking to remain present in the trial court to the dates to which the case was fixed by the trial court. The undisputed fact remains that the petitioner was not co-operating with the trial and was not appearing in the court below for recording her statement under Section 313 of CrPC . The undisputed facts also remains that the lawyer of the petitioner has intimated in writing by [ 2025:JHHC:34441] 3 Cr.M.P. No. 1794 of 2025 making endorsement in the relevant column of Order sheet that he has no instruction on behalf of the petitioner on 16.03.2024. The undisputed fact also remains that the petitioner engaged the concerned advocate, who has mentioned in writing that he has no instruction on behalf of the petitioner. 6. Keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner in not appearing before the Court concerned to frustrate the recording of her statement under Section 313 of CrPC in violation of her undertaking to appear personally on each of the dates to which the case would be fixed, this Court do not find any illegality in the order dated 16.03.2024 passed by learned SDJM, Godda in connection with G.R. no. 1212 of 2015 warranting the interference of this Court in exercise of the power under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023. 7. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 29th October, 2025 Smita /AFR Uploaded on 24/11//2025