Inland Power Limited vs State Of Jharkhand

Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for the cancellation of bail granted to the opposite parties no.2 and 3 in B.A. No.164 of 2017 vide order dated 31.01.2017 pertaining to Rajrappa P.S Case No.81 of 2016. He has referred to the order in annexure 2 and submitted that petitioner in this case was unable to attend the court due to no fault of the petitioner. He has further submitted that moreover the bail was procured with suppression and concealment of facts. The learned counsel for the petitioners in the bail application B.A. No. 164 of 2017 presented a false picture of land acquisitions and made out the case to be a labour dispute and thus, misled the court in giving bail to the petitioners therein. Learned counsel referred to pages 28 to 32 of this petition and pointed out that on the cause list of the day B.A. No. 164 of 2017 was listed in serial 402, however, due to certain reasons, the Bench that was meant to take up the item did not do so which is mentioned in annexure 3/1 and it was taken up by the Bench particularly by notice as indicated in annexure 3/2. To such sudden changes, the counsel for the petitioner in this case was unable to attend the court and counsel for the opposite parties totally misled this court and bail was allowed to the opposite parties herein in B.A. No. 164 of 2017.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that previously one of the opposite parties herein, namely, Rajeev Jaiswal used to supply some Hywa vehicles to the petitioner company Inland Power Limited and when he created trouble in functioning of the company, his service was discontinued and his contract was cancelled.

Learned counsel for the petitioner herein, submitted that this was the main reason for causing disruption of the work of the company and this was the prime motive all the troubles opposite parties herein has created.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that allegation that deal lands were being acquired and hence, there was a demand for compensation, is misleading because not an inch of land has been acquired rather every piece of land had been purchased by way of private sale from the respective land owners in the village. However the opposite parties have tried to show themselves as leaders and misled their workers and made it an issue of acquisition and compensation and therefore also misled the Hon'ble Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that criminal antecedents of the opposite party No.2 was not brought into picture when B.A. No. 164 of 2017 was heard by this Court. There are as many as 6 to 7 criminal cases registered against opposite party No.2 namely, Rajeev Jaiswal, under various serious offences and being unable to bring this to the picture of the Hon'ble Court and the opposite party procured bail then. He has then referred to the judgment of the Hon'bel Apex Court passed in the case of Gulabrao Baburao Deokar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2013)16 SCC 190 (Page 24 to 27) and pointed out that because of all these antecedents also the privilege of bail should not have been allowed to the opposite parties and rather still remains to be cancelled now.

Regarding the issue of locus standi which was raised by the opposite parties in this Cr.M.P, learned counsel for the petitioner herein submitted that the issue of the company having no locus standi cannot stand because Arvind Kumar who is the informant was merely the Security Manager and therefore he was only representing the company in the same capacity however, the main party is the company and the company can come for the redressal of its grievance through any of its personnel.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed that the opposite parties have indulged in serious offences extending to the imprisonment for at least 10 years and hence, offence being serious bail should not have been allowed to the opposite parties.

On the other hand learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that it was not the case that there was no opposition to the bail application as the learned counsel for the state, the learned APP had appeared and opposed the bail application. Learned counsel for the opposite parties herein argues that much is being made out about the listing of the work on the day when the bail was granted. He pointed out that the petitioner herein was fully notified regarding the work of the day due to some reasons being given to the concerned Hon'ble Bench, which had allowed the bail application. Notices of the kind that have been raised by the petitioners herein are not very uncommon in fact and occurs regularly therefore petitioner had knowledge about the notice and hence the petitioner company has no excuse rather if anyone it is to blame it may be the counsel himself who in spite of the notice did not appear. The petitioner herein cannot escape by shifting his responsibility in the name of regular work of the Hon'ble court in giving notices in the cause list and trying to hide behind it. Moreover the petitioner company is not stating that there was no dispute with the raiyats. It is a fact that there was dispute with the raiyats regarding land transfers. If company really wanted to make it more clear that land was not acquired but it was purchased, company could have attached the sale-deeds to show that there was no acquisition. Even if it was not an acquisition, the people concerned were still aggrieved by the company.

The learned senior counsel for the opposite party herein also submits that in the same matter about 7 to 8 persons have been granted bail by the Court and as many as 5 to 6 have been granted anticipatory bail by this Hon'ble Court and affidavit in this regard has been filed by the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3. Learned counsel submitted that when so many accused persons or other co-accused have already also been granted bail on similar circumstances and charges and when their bails have not been cancelled or sought to be cancelled there is no reason why these opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 should be singled out when the maximum sentence pertains to ten years.

Learned counsel has also pointed out the judgment rendered in the case of Dolat Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana reported in (1995)1 SCC 349 and argued that the rule is bail and not jail and also that cancellation of bail has to be under very-very grave and serious circumstances and given the facts of this case herein, the bail granted to the opposite parties cannot be cancelled. The granting of bail is more easily done than the cancellation of bail where serious and cogent consideration and circumstances have to be considered and therefore the opposite parties herein cannot have their bails cancelled.

Learned senior counsel appearing for the opposite parties further cited the judgment of Puran Vs. Rambilas & Ors. reported in (2001) 6 SCC 338( Paragraph 14) and submitted pointing out the original FIR that the informant is one Arvind Kumar and the petitioner herein now is not the informant and the said Arvind Kumar has not come forward for the cancellation of bail.

Having gone through arguments of both counsels and having gone through the records of the cases and other relevant documents that have been brought on record, it is noted that the bail has been granted as indicated, and hence here it is to be seen that though the learned counsel for the petitioner here has indicated many grounds for the cancellation of the bail but whether it totally outrages the counter reason that have been given by the opposite parties is also to be kept in mind. The rule is bail not jail and also the cancellation of bail should be done for very serious reasons and not in a mechanical manner. In the order of the Court dated 31.01.2017, passed in B.A. No. 164 of 2017 the court also noted the submissions of the petitioner therein that opposite parties herein were in custody from 21.10.2016 and also noted out the submissions of the opposite party i.e learned counsel for the state therein. This court had also directed while allowing bail that the petitioners will attend the trial at every date unless dispensed with by trial court below. This was done so that the trial could be concluded in cooperation and expeditiously and the case may be decided by the learned court below at the earliest. The learned counsel for the petitioner herein now has been able to bring materials which were not brought during the time bail was allowed. However, ground which has been placed by the petitioner herein for not being able to attend the court does not excuse him, because he was fully noticed through general notices and could have appeared even then to argue out his case. Based on the records then and the arguments that were submitted by both the parties this court had come to the decision therein. At this stage, further considerable time has elapsed and therefore since the opposite parties herein were in custody even then and the proceedings must have proceeded further at this stage it may not be prudent to cancel the bail now. I note that the judgment cited by the petitioner herein also refers to the case wherein the maximum sentences was of life while herein maximum sentences is of ten years. Even regular and anticipatory bail orders have been granted in favour of many of the co-accused in the case in hand and therefore signaling out the opposite parties herein for the cancellation of the bail in the circumstances may not be the correct direction to move in. In the judgment Dolat Ram (supra) cited by the opposite parties herein it is said:

"4. Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancelling of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. These principles, it appears, were lost sight of by the High Court when it decided to cancel the bail, already granted. The high Court it appears to us overlooked the distinction of the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non-bailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted."

Therefore, for all these reasons, this court is unable to agree with the petitioner and reject the prayer for cancellation of bail granted to opposite party No. 2 and 3 herein in B.A. No. 164 of 2017 vide order dated 31.01.2017. However, opposite parties herein shall continue to attend trial at every date unless dispensed with by the learned trial court.

Accordingly the prayer in this Cr.M.P. is dismissed.