PUA ALIAS MANGULEI TARAI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner, who is an accused in g. R. Case No. 973 of 2004 pending in the court of learned SDJM, Jaipur has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. for quashing the order dated 1. 9. 2005 directing issue of NBW against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was on bail and was appearing in the Court regularly, but on 1. 9. 2005 he could not attend the Court due to unavoidable difficulty. He states that this is the first lapse of the petitioner regarding appearance in the Court and, therefore, issuance of NBW against him was not proper.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the State supports the impugned order stating that whenever an accused jumps bail or remains absent from the Court on a date of hearing, the concerned Court can issue coercive steps against the said accused.

(3.) THERE is no quarrel with regard to the legal proposition that whenever an accused jumps bail or remains absent from the Court on a date of hearing without taking any steps for condonation of his absence, the Court can issue coercive steps against such accused for his production. Such being the legal position, the impugned order cannot be said to be illegal or unreasonable and cannot be quashed.