AMIYA KUMAR JHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner seeks quashing of an order dated 16-1-1996 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, in Gardanibagh P.S. Case No. 194/95 whereby the application of the petitioner under Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected and the application for extension of provisional bail granted to the petitioner was rejected and bail bonds were cancelled and non-vailable warrant have been ordered to be issued against the petitioner. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction to the Trial Court to grant regular bail to the petitioner in terms of the order of the Supreme Court passed in S.L.P. (Cr.) No. 3065/95 and further direction to the Court below for compounding the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code in view of the joint compromise petition filed on behalf of the rival parties. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner not pressed the application regarding compounding of offences on the basis of compromise petition.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the opposite party as well as the learned Counsel for the informant have been heard.

(3.) It appears that the petitioner is an accused in Gardanibagh P.S. Case No. 194/95. It further appears that the Supreme Court passed order in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 4903/95 on 13-11-95 wherein it has been observed that as the petitioner has been granted interim bail no further order need be passed and the petitioner will be entitled to ask for regular bail from the Trial Court. It was further directed that the interim order will be confined up to a period of two months from that date (13-11-95). With the above direction the Special Leave Petition was disposed of. It further appears that the petitioner applied for regular bail on 23-12-95. However, the learned Magistrate instead of disposing of the said bail application deferred hearing on the same to 14-1-96 after making observation that as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ordered for interim bail to the petitioner till 13-11-95, the said order of interim bail will remain in force till that date. A copy of the order passed by the learned Magistrate on 23-12-95 is at annexure 5. It further appears that the case could not be taken up on 14-1- 96 and 15-1-96 and it was taken up on 16-1-96. On that date the petitioner filed an application for representation through Counsel under Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate rejected the said representation on the ground that period of interim bail had expired on 13-1-96. The learned Magistrate also refused to allow the prayer of the accused/petitioner for extension of the period of provisional bail which had earlier been granted up to 10-1-96 by order dated 18-12-95 (copy at annexure 4). The learned Magistrate did not consider the regular bail application of the petitioner and did not even refer in the order dated 16-1-96. The learned Magistrate cancelled the bail bonds of the petitioner and ordered for issuance of non-bailable warrant against the petitioner and show-cause notices against the sureties. Feeling aggrieved by this order the petitioner has moved this application.