SUDARSAN PARIDA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. S. N. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner in this Criminal Misc. Case challenges the order dated 19.7.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadrak in S.T. Case No. 4/1/2001.

(2.) ACCORDING to Mr. Mohapatra, there are altogether four accused persons in S.T. Case No. 4/1/2001, namely, Babu alias Prasanta Parida, Baina @ Baidhar Mahalik, Shanti Parida, wife of Suresh Parida and the present petitioner Sudarsan Parida. All of them engaged their respective counsel. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Babu and Baina are in jail custody but accused Shanti Parida and the present petitioner, Sudarsan Parida were enlarged on bail and according to him the present petitioner was personally appearing before the Court and on some dates, applications under Section 317 of the Cr.P.C. were filed. On 19.7.2004, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sudarsan Parida was present but accused Shanti Parida was absent. The Investigating Officer was also present. Learned counsel for the defence submitted that he had no instruction from Shantilata Parida regarding her non -appearance. This prompted the learned Additional Sessions Judge to pass the order dated 19.7.2004 in which the N.B.W. was issued against Shantilata Parida and also for initiation of proceeding against the sureties. But at the same time, learned Additional Sessions Judge cancelled the bail bond of Sudarsan Parida who was present in Court on that date and remanded him to jail custody. Adding to that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has also disengaged the defence counsel and appointed one Mr. P. Panda as the State defence. Mr. S. N. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Mr. R. R. Mohapatra was the defence counsel and was appearing for all the accused persons and he has only submitted that he has no instruction as regards non -appearance of Shantilata Parida. But as other accused persons were present, there was no occasion to disengage him and engage a State Defence Counsel. According to Mr.Mohapatra, the Additional Sessions Judge may be correct.

(3.) "Any Court which has released a person on bail under Sub -section (1), or Sub -section (2), may, if is considers it necessary so to do, direct that such person be arrested and commit him to custody." Section 439(2) speaks of the following : "A High Court or Court of Session may direct that any person who has been released on bail under this Chapter be arrested and commit him to custody". As it appears, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has taken a ground that continuance of Sudarsan Parida under such suretyship bond of the same person who has given the surety to Shantilata Parida is bound to cause delay in further trial of the case if he leaves Orissa and goes to Calcutta where he pursues his avocation. It is stated that the present petitioner as a Central Government servant. Be that as it may, there was no material before the trial Court to show that the sureties have no control over Sudarsan Parida as Sudarsan Parida appeared on the date on which the order was passed. I may remind the Addl. Sessions Judge that bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. (See 1995 (1) SCC 349, Dolatram and others v. State of Haryana).