RAGHUNATH LENKA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State.

(2.) The petitioner has assailed the order dated 08.04.2015 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Jagatsinghpur in G.R. Case No. 205 of 1996, wherein the application filed by the petitioner under Sec. 205 of the Crimial P.C. has been rejected.

(3.) The petitioner being the accused in the case was summoned to answer the charge under Sections 341, 294 and 324 of the I.P.C. Upon submission of charge-sheet, as the offences are bailable in nature, learned Magistrate issued summons to the present petitioner. On 03.07.2003, he appeared in the court and was released on bail. On 13.09.2010, the petitioner was not present and nobody took any steps on his behalf. Hence, N.B.W. was issued against the present petitioner fixing 23.02.2011 for production. On 08.04.2015, Advocate S.N. Routray filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the accused and also filed a petition under Sec. 205 of the Crimial P.C. to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P., learned S.D.J.M., Jagatsinghpur has rejected the application. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been working as a daily labourer under a Contractor at Bangalore, hence, it is difficult, time taking and expensive to appear on each date before the learned Magistrate. Hence, the application under Sec. 205 of the Crimial P.C. may be allowed. However, the petitioner's application was rejected on the ground that the case was lingering for production of the accused and the accused is avoiding police arrest.