BONA XALXO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Gaurav, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Mahua Palit, the learned counsel for the State.

(2.) This criminal miscellaneous petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

(3.) The petitioner is aggrieved with the part of the order dtd. 25/1/2020 whereby a direction has been issued by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I Simdega wherein the petitioner has been directed to furnish one undertaking before the court that he will produce the accused Sushila Xalxo immediately before the court so that the trial may start. Pursuant to certain dispute the articles of the petitioner was attached. The petitioner moved before this Court in Cr.M.P. No.3872/2019 in which the process of proclamation dtd. 3/4/2019 and process of attachment dtd. 19/6/2019 have been quashed. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed further Vakalatnama and filed the petition to release his property before the court below on 23/1/2020. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Simdega has passed the impugned order dtd. 25/1/2020 and directed the petitioner to furnish one undertaking to produce the accused Sushila Xalxo. By the said order, the learned Judge has directed to release the articles in favour of the petitioner but with a rider of the same. The petitioner is not in a position to produce the accused. Under the Criminal Procedure Code, there are provisions of procuring the appearance of the accused as well as the witness and without resorting to them, the said rider has been put upon the petitioner which is against the mandate of law.