DINESH KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admit. Notice of this appeal was given to Public Prosecutor. And, with the consent of both the learned counsel, this appeal is being finally disposed of today.

(2.) Accused Dinesh Kumar was prosecuted for offence u/s 307, IPC, and the case was pending in the Court of Sessions Judge, Jhalawar. The case was fixed for 19th Dec., 1988, for evidence. On that date, accused Dinesh Kumar did not appear, and so, the learned Sessions Judge passed order forfeiting the entire surety-amount as well as the amount of the personal-bond. Against that order, the present appeal has been preferred.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant contended that accused Dinesh Kumar was in custody in District Jail - Jhalawar, from 17th Dec., '88 to 23rd Dec., '88, and so, on account of this, he could not attend the court on 19th Dec., '88. Without giving an opportunity to him and the surety to explain the cause of absence of the accused, the learned Sessions Judge has passed the impugned order. It was contended by the learned counsel that the learned Sessions Judge, when the accused appeared before him, took his bail on 3rd Jan., '89, considering the same reason that he was in jail on 19th Dec., '88, and as such, he could not attend the court. When the learned Sessions Judge accepted the reason given by the accused and granted him bail on 3rd Jan., '89, he should not have passed the impugned order without giving an opportunity to the appellant. The reason for absence of accused Dinesh Kumar on 19th Dec., '88, was a reasonable one, and he could not attend the court, as he was confined to jail. As such, the order passed by the Sessions Judge on 19th Dec., '88, cannot be maintained.