MAKSUDAN THAKUR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD 1he learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) THIS revision petition is maintainable as the rejection of the petition filed under Section 317 of the Cr.P.C. and of cancellation of bail bond. On the face of the record and the materials it cannot be said that the orders passed by the learned courts below on 19.6.2001 and 25.6.2001 are beyond 20. jurisdiction for that the learned courts below had committed error of law. On 19.6.2001 the petitioner prayed for dispensing with the personal appearance on the ground that he had gone to Patna to consult his lawyer. The petition was rejected and on the next date fixed he came up with another petition for dispensing with personal appearance on the ground that he is suffering from bad arthritis. The plea taken by the petitioner had created a definite doubt in the matter. Learned 25. court below found that the petitioner was intentionally avoiding to appear before the court. Such doubt cannot be considered to be beyond the records or perverse. In that way it cannot be said that the impugned orders are bad. However only on compassionate ground the order dated 25.6.2001 may be kept in abeyance regarding cancellation of bail bond and the same may be promulgated only if the 30 next date fixed in Bachhawara P.S. Case no. 24/2000 (G.R. 721/2000) the petitioner fails to appear personally before the court below. On that date also there is default on the part of the petitioner for physical appearance then the order of rejection and cancellation of bail bond shall remain in vogue.