Prashant Jain vs State of Rajasthan and Others

M.N. Bhandari, J.—By this criminal misc. petition, following prayer has been made -

"It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that your Lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this Criminal Misc. Petition and further the learned Trial Court may kindly be directed to expeditiously issue warrant of arrest in view of the order passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court and Hon''ble High Court and the respondents No. 2 and 3 be directed to arrest the accused persons." 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that despite a detailed judgment of this court in SB. Cr. Misc. (Cancellation of Bail) Application No. 7643/2011, decided on 18.4.2013, the police has not arrested the accused respondents. This is more so when after interim order of the Hon''ble Supreme Court against the said order, finally the SLP No. 3824/2013 and 4059/2013, preferred by the accused respondents, were withdrawn with a liberty to file application before the learned Magistrate for regular bail, The accused respondents did not submit a bail application in pursuance to the liberty given by the Hon''ble Supreme Court thus petitioner had submitted an application at annexure-13 to forfeit bail bonds and for issuance of warrant of arrest. The application aforesaid has not been decided despite order of this court so as the Hon''ble Supreme Court. Thus, petitioner was left with no option but to prefer this criminal misc. petition with the prayer made above.

The police personnel are hand-in-gloves with the accused, therefore only, non-petitioners have not been arrested since long. It is when a direction was given by the High Court to arrest them while cancelling their bail by a detailed and reasoned order. This court may pass appropriate order as prayed in this petition or, in the alternative, direction may be given to the court below to consider and decide the application immediately in the light of the judgment of this court and the Hon''ble Supreme Court.

Learned counsel for accused respondents raised objection regarding maintainability of the misc. petition. He submits that when the similar application is pending before the learned Magistrate, this petition would not be maintainable. He further submits that after cancellation of bail and while the matter was pending before the Hon''ble Apex Court, accused respondents were granted regular bail on filling of charge sheet, thus question of forfeiture of bail bonds and issuance of warrants of arrest does not arise.

I have considered rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.

The case is hand has checkered history. It would be necessary to narrate the facts after accused respondents were granted bail. An application for cancellation of bail was submitted before this court and was decided on 18.4.2013. The application for cancellation of bail was allowed by a detailed and reasoned order. Following directions were given by this court, which are quoted hereunder -

"Consequently, the application filed under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. is allowed and the impugned order dated 20.5.2011 is set aside and cancelled and the respondents are directed to surrender before the concerned I.O./S.H.O. within a period of seven from today failing which I.O./S.H.O. shall have liberty to take necessary steps for their arrest." 7. The said order was challenged by the accused respondents before the Hon''ble Supreme Court, where, interim order was passed staying operation of the order dated 18.4.2013. The SLP, thereupon was withdrawn by the non-petitioners with liberty to file application before the learned Magistrate for regular bail. It was with direction to the learned Magistrate to consider the same in accordance with law without being influenced by any one of the observations made by the trial court or the High Court while considering previous applications. The order passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court is reproduced hereunder-

"Learned council appearing for the petitioners, on instructions, seeks permission of this Court to withdraw these special leave petitions with liberty to file appropriate application before the learned Magistrate for seeking regular bail. Permission sought for granted. The special leave petitions are disposed of as withdrawn with the liberty to the petitioner(s) to file appropriate application before the learned Magistrate for seeking regular bail. If such an application is filed, the learned Magistrate will consider the same in accordance with law without being influenced by any one of the observations made by the trial court or the High Court while considering the previous application of the petitioner(s)" 8. When the case was pending before the Hon''ble Apex Court, non-petitioners submitted regular bail application on submission of the charge sheet. The bail was granted in reference to the order of learned district and sessions court. The said order is also reproduced hereasunder-

The charge sheet filed by the police was containing incorrect facts regarding grant of bail by the High Court and dismissal of the SLP, whereas, it was pending at the relevant time. The fact aforesaid is quite alarming. If the order passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court is considered, no interference was made in the order passed by the High Court on 18.4.2013 for cancellation of bail. After cancellation of the bail granted by the Sessions Court, no interference was caused by the Hon''ble Apex Court, thus consequence has to follow. The non-petitioners were knowing about it, thus while withdrawing the SLP, they sought liberty to move regular bail application. The bail granted to the accused respondents on filing of charge sheet was in reference to the anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court but was then cancelled by the High Court.

It is not the case of either party that regular bail application was moved by the non-petitioners after dismissal of the SLP on 5.5.2014. In view of the facts given above and in the light of the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Sudam Charan Dash Vs. State of Orissa and Another, learned Magistrate was expected to pass appropriate order immediately on the application submitted by the non-petitioners. It should have proceeded otherwise also, after dismissal of the SLP, where order for cancellation of bail was not interfered.

Since the application is pending before the court below, this criminal misc. petition is disposed of with direction to pass order after taking into consideration all the facts narrated above. If any delay is caused in doing so, it would be viewed seriously. It would be not only for non-adherence of the order passed by the High Court on 18.04.2013 but the Hon''ble Supreme Court also.