ROMA MUKHERJEE Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. Mr. Sen, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in a case bearing C/1 Case No. 45 of 2010 in which the petitioner had been put on trial, an application under Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed on 4.1.2012 praying therein to allow her to be represented through her Lawyer. That application was rejected as the counsel appearing for the petitioner did not appear before the court. At the same time, non-bailable warrant of arrest was ordered to be issued against the petitioner.

(2.) It was further submitted that without having any report relating to execution of warrant of arrest, process under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been ordered to be issued, vide order dated 4.9.2012 and then on 18.10.2012, process under Section 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been ordered to be issued without having any report relating to execution of the process and then an order was passed on 20.5.2013 whereby the petitioner was declared absconder and therefore, under the circumstances, none of the orders seem to have been passed in accordance with law and thereby all the orders, referred to above, are fit to be set aside.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the order, it does appear that an application was filed under Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein prayer was made to allow her to be represented through her Lawyer. Since, the Lawyer did not appear, that application filed under Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected and the warrant of arrest non-bailable was ordered to be issued. That order never seems to be in consonance with the provision as contained in Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.