BHANU PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD on merits.

(2.) THE petitioner challenges the order dated 28.7.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge -I, Sahebganj in Sessions Case No. 110 of 2005 rejecting his petition for discharge.

(3.) IT appears that the petitioner was named in the First Information Report as one of the accused. A charge -sheet against other accused persons was submitted showing the petitioner absconder. Investigation against him and another suspect was continuing. When their involvement was found, a supplementary case diary and charge -sheet No. 41 of 2004 was submitted on 11.8.2004 showing them as absconders. Cognizance for the offences under Sections 362, 302, 342, 323, 120 -B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and others was taken on 18.8.2004. By order dated 22.3.2005. the trial of the petitioner was separated as he was absconding. By order dated 30.3.2005. the case of the other accused persons was committed to the Court of Sessions. By order dated 24.6.2005, the case of the petitioner and another accused was committed to the Court of Sessions, on the basis of his custody warrant duly produced in the Court on the date fixed. The police papers were already supplied to him. He was remanded to judicial custody to be produced before the Sessions Court. The judgment of Ajay Kumar Singh (supra) is of no help to the petitioner. Petitioner could not show how he suffered any prejudice. In the case reported in 1976 Cr LJ 1774. Onkar Singh and others V/s. State, Allahabad High Court held as follows : '4................ It has now been held by that very Bench consisting of H.N. Seth and G. D. Srivastava, JJ. in the case of Lakshmi Brahman V/s. State, 1975 All WC 369 : 1976 Cri LJ 118 that commitment under Section 209, Cr PC is a mechanical process and the commitment proceedings do not amount to an enquiry. No prejudice was, therefore. caused to the applicants by their non -production in Court at the time of commitment as they were in jail and had already appeared before the Magistrate or brought before him earlier. There also appears to be force in the, argument of the learned Asstt. Govt. Advocate that the object of Section 209, Cr PC is that the commitment order should not be passed when the accused is absconding or has never been brought before the Court at all."