VIJAY TATA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Impugned order of 10th September, 2013 rejects petitioner's application for clarification of order of 5th September, 2013 wherein it is noted that petitioner has been already declared Proclaimed Offender and the cognizance of the offence was taken against remaining accused persons as shown in column No. 11 in the charge-sheet. Upon hearing and no perusal of the impugned order of 10th September 2013, I find that rejection of petitioner's application vide, impugned order does not suffer from any palpable error as petitioner was to appear before the trial court on 5th September, 2013 and he had failed to do so by taking refuge behind the order of 5th September, 2013 in which there is a reference of taking cognizance of the offence. It needs no clarification that cognizance of the offence was taken vide order of 5th September, 2013 qua co-accused of petitioner as shown in column No. 11 of the charge-sheet and not against petitioner.

(2.) During the course of hearing, apprehension was expressed by the learned counsel for petitioner that upon petitioner appearing before the trial court, he will be taken into custody as he has been declared Proclaimed Offender and it would be prejudiced to petitioner who has settled the subject matter of his FIR with the complainants of this FIR.

(3.) In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it is directed that upon petitioner appearing before the trial court on the next date of hearing, petitioner. Vijay Tata be admitted to bail by the trial court upon his furnishing the bail-bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one local surety of the like amount. In the charge-sheets filed, in which petitioner has already settled the subject matter of this FIR with the complainant-party, petitioner shall not be required to furnish multiple sureties and would be permitted by the trial court to furnish cash sureties in the other charge-sheets pertaining to this FIR in which settlement with the complainant-party has been acted upon.