### Direction to Grant Bail upon Appearance for Simultaneous Charge Framing Court's Direction: The Court directed the trial court to grant regular bail if all accused appear together by a specified date for simultaneous framing of charges.

The petitioners were accused in Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No. 63 of 2016 for offences under Sections 379/411 of the IPC and Section 54 of the Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concessions Rules, 2004.

On 09.12.2024, the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Pakur, rejected the petitioners' representation under Section 317 of the Cr.P.C. for exemption from personal appearance, cancelled their bail, and issued non-bailable warrants (NBW) on the grounds of non-cooperation with the framing of charges.

A subsequent revision application before the Sessions Judge, Pakur, was dismissed on 11.07.2025.

The petitioners moved the High Court seeking to quash these orders, filing an undertaking (I.A. No. 2753 of 2026) stating their readiness to appear and cooperate.

1. Whether the trial court was justified in cancelling the petitioners’ bail and issuing non-bailable warrants despite the filing of a representation for exemption through counsel.

2. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent powers to provide an opportunity for the petitioners to appear and seek regular bail.

The court primarily applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 [formerly Section 482 Cr.P.C.], regarding the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of law.

It also referenced Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) regarding the provision for inquiries and trials being held in the absence of the accused in certain cases.

The court considered the procedural requirements for the framing of charges and the judicial discretion involved in cancelling bail for non-cooperation.

The High Court noted that the CJM rejected the petitioners' prayer for representation by a lawyer largely because a third co-accused was also absent, leading to the conclusion that the accused were willfully stalling the framing of charges.

However, the High Court observed that the petitioners submitted fresh affidavits expressing a bona fide intention to cooperate and appear before the trial court.

By balancing the need for an expeditious trial with the petitioners' right to liberty, the court determined that the interests of justice would be served by providing a specific timeline for their appearance.

The Court reasoned that if all accused persons appear simultaneously to facilitate the framing of charges, the necessity for coercive measures (NBWs) would be obviated.

The Court ordered that if they appear, the CJM shall consider framing charges that same day, and upon the framing of charges, the petitioners shall be granted regular bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- each.

Failure to appear by the stipulated time will result in the CJM taking all coercive steps for their apprehension.