A single-judge bench of Patna High Court held as follows,

It appears from the averment made in the instant petition that at the relevant time the petitioner was Managing Director and whole time Director of the Company and the complaint was filed by Registrar of the Company under section 58(A) of the Companies Act read with Rule-3 (i)(a) proviso (i) Rule 10 of the Company within (Acceptance and Deposits) Rules, 1975. The reason for rejection of the application under Section 205 Cr. P.C. as appears from Annexure-2 that the offence is non-bailable. The court below committed error of jurisdiction in ignoring the fact that in the instant case after taking cognizance, summon was issued by the court below and in view of the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Ram Harsh Das case reported in 1998(1) PLJR 502, the court was required to consider the application of the petitioner on its own merits without being prejudiced by the facts that the offence as alleged is non-bailable. In similar circumstances, a Bench of this Court in Cr. Revision Nos. 543, 454 of 2006 in the case of Manish Giri vs. State of Bihar reported in 2007 (1) PLJR has discussed the scope under section 205 Cr.P.C. and noticing the Division Bench judgment in the case of Ram Harsh Das (supra) and various other judgments held out that power to refuse permission under section 205 Cr.P.C. should not be used as a substitute for ultimate punishment which could be awarded. The court decided the matter but also in the last paragraph issued direction to the Registrar to circulate the copy of the order for to all the Civil Courts in the State of Bihar for guidelines of Judicial Officers in future.

Notwithstanding the aforesaid judgment which was circulated to all the Civil Courts, the court below rejected the application of the petitioner filed to dispense with personal appearance vide order dated 9.12.2010 and even the revisional court in Cr. Revision No. 97 of 2011 has failed to exercise judicial discretion for the ends of justice and as such the petitioner was constraint to approach this Court by way of filing the instant application.

Casemine version: