DEEPAK TIRU Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the O.P. NO.2.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was facing trial for the charges under Sections 448/506 of the Indian Penal Code and when the prosecution did close his prosecution case, it was fixed for recording the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of this petitioner, who, in the midst of the trial, left for Canada and has been living there. Therefore, a petition was filed on his behalf to allow him to be represented through lawyer as the petitioner does not want to answer any of the question put to his counsel under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal. Procedure, but that prayer was refused without there being any cogent reason by the court below and consequently, the bail bond of the petitioner was cancelled and warrant of arrest was issued which is quite illegal and hence, the impugned order is fit to be set aside.

(3.) HAVING heard the parties, I do find substance in the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner. Admittedly, offence for which the petitioner is being tried, are summons, tribal case and that when the stage of recording statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure came forth, an application was filed on behalf of the petitioner to allow him to be represented through his lawyer as the petitioner does not want to answer any of the question put to his counsel and at the same time it was also stated that he would not raise any question relating to prejudice, if any caused to him but that prayer was refused for the reason that the petitioner having been granted bail, left the country without having permission of the court but that ground had no relevance with the issue which was related to recording the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, though that ground may have relevance with the matter relating to cancellation of bail if the condition of not leaving the country without permission of the court would have been there. However, that needs not to be gone into Question was with respect to recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. From the perusal of the provision as contained in Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it appears that the purpose of putting question during examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to afford the accused personally, an opportunity of explaining any incriminating circumstances so appearing in evidence against him. However, the accused mayor may not avail the opportunity for offering his explanation. It be further noticed that Section 313 does not envisage the examination of the counsel in place of accused warrant triable cases are concerned but that mandate, in view of the proviso to Section. 313(1) is never there so far summons cases are concerned.