MANORMA DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. This application is directed against the order dated 1.2.2012 in connection with S.T. No. 366 of 2010 [arising out of Sindri P.S. Case No. 61 of 2008 (corresponding to G.R. No. 2661 of 2008)], whereby application filed under Section 317 of the Cr.P.C. for allowing the petitioner to be represented through her lawyer was rejected and non-bailable warrant of arrest was ordered to be issued against the petitioner after bail was cancelled.

(2.) Having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State and on perusal of the record, it does appear that on the date fixed, an application was filed under Section 317 Cr.P.C. stating therein, that since the petitioner is ill and is under treatment, the petitioner would be unable to appear physically. Doctor's prescription was also annexed with that application, but the court below, without any rhymes or reasons, did record that the petitioner has been deliberately not appearing in this case though there was prescription of the Doctor and without raising any doubt over the said prescription, the order was recorded and as such, the trial court does not seem to be justified in rejecting the application and passing order for issuance of warrant of arrest.

(3.) Accordingly, the order dated 1.2.2012 is hereby, set aside.