[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Seemanchal Swai vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 March, 2026
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1422 of 2000
SEEMANCHAL SWAI versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Order Sheet
20.03.2026
None for the appellant.
Mr. Shailesh Puriya, learned Panel Lawyer for the
State.
In this matter, after releasing the appellant on bail
on 05.06.2000, in two occasions Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta,
Advocate has appeared on behalf of appellant on
30.06.2014 and 09.07.2018, except that no one has
appeared on behalf of the appellant in other occasions.
This Court has issued non-bailable warrant against
the appellant on 24.04.2024, still no one has appeared,
thereafter, again non-bailable warrant has been issued
against the appellant on 16.06.2025 and 02.01.2026, still
no one has appeared on behalf of the accused.
Thereafter, this Court has directed for cancellation of bail
to the learned trial Court on 13.02.2026.
Digitally
signed by
MANISH
MANISH YADAV
YADAV Date:
2026.03.20
15:18:24
+0530
In pursuance of direction given by this Court, the
learned trial Court has initiated proceeding for
cancellation of bail and issued notice to one Mr. D. Sohan
Babu. It has been informed by the learned trial Court that
Mr. D. Sohan Babu has left the residential address given
in the bail furnishing bond, as such, no one has appeared.
Therefore, there is no option for this Court but to
engage defense counsel through High Court Legal Aid
Committee and accordingly the Secretary, High Court
Legal Aid Committee is directed to engage a counsel who
is well versed with the criminal law to defend the accused.
This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Bhola Mahto vs. The
State of Jharkhand reported in 2026 INSC 257 has also
directed that before engaging defense counsel, it is
expedient for the Courts to inform the accused and in
paragraph 23 has held as under:
"23. In continuation of the above and in the light of
what has transpired in course of the present
proceedings, we wish to make an additional
observation. It is a matter of common knowledge
that once a convict obtains an order from the
appellate court suspending the sentence of
imprisonment and is, consequently, released on
bail, more often than not, he neglects and/or fails to
cooperate with the court and impedes an
expeditious decision on his appeal by staying away
from the proceedings with a view to ensure that his
liberty is not curtailed, if the appeal were to fail.
Drawing from experience, we can record that on
many an occasion, such convicts become
untraceable. These convicts, enjoying the
concession of bail and misusing it, need to be dealt
with firm and strong hands by the courts. Having
regard to the dictum of the three-Judge Bench in
Anokhi Lal (supra) and in order to curb the tendency
of convicts to raise technical pleas of the nature
which were advanced before us, we observe that,
henceforth, whenever an appellate court considers
it desirable to appoint an amicus to represent a
convict whose counsel is absent, such court may
also consider the desirability of issuing a notice
from the registry to the address of the convict
mentioned in the memorandum of appeal, for such
notice to be served on him through the jurisdictional
police station, with an intimation that the convict
may contact the learned amicus and provide him
necessary instructions so that his case is argued
before the court effectively and meaningfully. In the
event the convict contacts the amicus and provides
instructions, there would ordinarily be no
impediment in proceeding with hearing of the
appeal. If, indeed, the convict desires to have his
own counsel argue the appeal on his behalf and not
the amicus, the court may hear such counsel in
addition to the amicus. However, if the service
report indicates that the convict was not found at
the address or that he refused to accept notice
despite being present, it would amount to sufficient
compliance if the notice is pasted on the outer wall
of the premises, address whereof is mentioned in
the cause title of the memorandum of appeal.
Should the convict still remain dormant, and it is so
reported, the High Court may proceed to decide the
appeal without waiting for the convict to turn up
either in person or through the counsel of his choice
engaged by him. This process, in our view, would
substantially serve the purpose of eliminating any
plea of unfairness being raised before this Court if
an appeal is disposed of upon hearing the amicus
appointed by the court. Additionally, in a case of like
nature where the appeal is listed two decades after
grant of bail, this process would ensure obtaining of
information as to whether the appeal survives for
decision or stands abated. In case of the latter, the
courts could avoid spending precious judicial time
deciding an appeal which, by operation of law, may
not require a decision on merits. Of course, for a
convict in custody who has committed an offence
punishable with death or life imprisonment, the
directions in Anokhi Lal (supra) have to be
scrupulously followed apart from the relevant rules
regulating the business of the courts concerned."
But in the present factual position, despite all the
efforts made by this Court, no one has appeared on
behalf of the accused, therefore, the Secretary, High
Court Legal Aid Committee is directed to engage a
counsel who is well versed with the criminal law.
List this case for further hearing on 15th April, 2026.
Since the record has already been scanned, the
Secretary, High Court Legal Aid Committee is directed to
obtain the complete record and engage a counsel who
can make submission on behalf of the appellants.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge
Manish
