RAJENDRA SINGH SHEKHAWAT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties.

(2.) The petitioner, who is an accused in criminal case No.180/2012 filed under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, is aggrieved by order dtd. 12/2/2020 passed by learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Chomu whereby trial Judge rejected the representation of the petitioner filed under Sec. 317 Cr.P.C on the ground that sufficient cause for non-appearance is not disclosed therein. The Trial Judge further cancelled the bail bond and issued bailable warrant of arrest.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order would reveal that complainant was also not present on 12/2/2020. Application filed by the complainant to condone absence was accepted by the court below. In absence of the complainant, certainly there was no question of progress in the trial. Moreover if the court below was not satisfied with the reasons of absence of petitioner, it should have followed the mandate of provisions of Sec. 317 Cr.P.C. before cancelling the bail bond and issuance of warrant of arrest.