Patna High Court
Surendra Kumar MishraversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The order cancelling the bail bond dated 02‑03‑2023 is set aside.
Summary
Surendra Kumar Mishra, a retired army man employed as a security in‑charge in Delhi, filed an application to quash the order dated 02‑03‑2023 that cancelled his bail bond in a criminal case (Case No. 83 of 2021). The cancellation was based on his non‑appearance on three occasions, during which neither he nor his counsel appeared, the latter being ill. Mishra contended that his absence was due to his service commitments and his lawyer’s illness, and that a representative attendance application filed on 02‑03‑2023 should have been accepted. The State argued that the petitioner’s consecutive absences justified the cancellation and that there was no illegality in the trial court’s order. The High Court observed that the lawyer had appeared on the date of cancellation and had filed a representative attendance application, which the trial court ignored, and that there was no deliberate attempt by the petitioner to evade trial. Consequently, the court set aside the cancellation order and directed the petitioner to appear before the trial court and file a fresh bail bond.
Issues considered
- Whether the cancellation of the bail bond without accepting the petitioner's representative attendance application was legally valid.
- Whether the petitioner's non‑appearance, attributable to his service in Delhi and his lawyer's illness, warrants quashing the cancellation order.
Subjects
- bail
- bail bond
- non‑appearance
- representative attendance
- quash order
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82535 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-83 Year-2021 Thana- SAMSTIPUR RAIL P.S District-
Samastipur
======================================================
Surendra Kumar Mishra Son Of Shree Kishori Kant Mishra Resident of
village-Sohpur, Post-Rampur, P.S-Harlakhi,District-Madhubani
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shankar Kumar Thakur, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Amitesh Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 21-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioner has preferred this application for
quashing the order dated 02.03.2023 passed by the learned
Additional District Judge 2nd -cum-Special Judge (Excise),
Samastipur in Samastipur Rail P.S. Case No. 83 of 2021
corresponding to GR Case No. 744 of 2021 and T.R. No. 934 of
2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is an ex-army man and after his retirement from the
service he was, at the relevant time, working as Security In-
charge in Delhi. It is further submitted that the petitioner had
diligently appeared almost on all the dates either personally or
through his lawyer. However, on account of the illness of his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82535 of 2024(3) dt.21-01-2026
2/3
lawyer no representation could be filed on 06.02.2023,
14.02.2023 and 23.02.2023. However, on the next date i.e.
02.03.2023, the lawyer appeared and had filed an application for
representative attendance of the petitioner but the same was not
accepted and the bail-bonds of the petitioner was cancelled.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that non-
appearance of either the lawyer or the petitioner was on account
of illness of the lawyer and there is no deliberate attempt by the
petitioner to run away from the trial of the case. It was only on
account of his service in Delhi that the petitioner could not
appear on the said date and the bail-bond was cancelled despite
the fact that a representative attendance was filed on 02.03.2023
when the same was not accepted and the order for cancellation
of the bail-bond was passed.
5. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State has
submitted that the petitioner did not appear consecutively for
four days and his bail-bond was cancelled and there is no
illegality in the impugned order dated 02.03.2023.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned APP for the State, it is found from the perusal of
the order that the petitioner had absented himself on three dates
and no application on behalf of the lawyer was submitted for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82535 of 2024(3) dt.21-01-2026
3/3
those three days and hence the bail-bond of the petitioner was
cancelled by the learned trial court. It is also evident that the
lawyer had appeared on the date when the bail-bond was
cancelled and has also filed an application on behalf of the
petitioner, however the same was not taken into account.
7. In view of the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner and especially taking into account the
fact that he is in service in Delhi and the lawyer concerned was
indisposed and was not able to attend the court proceedings and
as such there was no deliberate attempt on behalf of the
petitioner to evade the court proceedings.
8. In view of the aforesaid, the order dated 02.03.2023
passed by the learned Additional District Judge 2 nd -cum-Special
Judge (Excise), Samastipur in Samastipur Rail P.S. Case No. 83
of 2021 corresponding to GR Case No. 744 of 2021 and T.R.
No. 934 of 2023 is set aside.
9. The petitioner is directed to appear before the
learned trial court and file a fresh bail-bond which shall be
accepted by the trial court.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
krishna/-
U T
Checking your session…