Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 738 (JHR)

Kishore Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2013-06-26

R.R.PRASAD

body2013
ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was made accused in a complaint case bearing C.P. Case no.1233 of 2011. In that case when cognizance of the offence was taken under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, the petitioner did surrender and was granted bail. Subsequently, the complainant being aggrieved with the order whereunder cognizance was not taken for other offences moved before the revisional court and the revisional court after hearing the parties remanded the matter before the court below for passing a fresh order. Thereupon cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act was taken. 3. In that eventuality, an application was filed on behalf of the petitioner for allowing him to remain on previous bail bond. That prayer was rejected on 13.6.2012 which order is under challenge. 4. Mr. Nanda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that once the petitioner on the same allegation was allowed bail, the court should have allowed the petitioner to remain on previous bail in spite of the fact that the court did find that offences under Sections 406, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code besides the offence under the Negotiable Instrument Act are made out but by not doing so, the court has committed illegality. 5. The submission which was advanced on behalf of the petitioner is contrary to the decision rendered in a case of Hamida vs. Rashid @ Rasheed and others [ (2008) 1 SCC 474 ] and also in a case of Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT, Delhi and another [ (2001) 4 SCC 280 ] wherein it has been held that with the change in the nature of the offence, the accused becomes disentitled to the liberty granted to him in relation to a minor offence, if the offence is altered for an aggravated crime. In that event, the court cannot be said to have committed any illegality in passing the order. 6. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this application and hence, this application is rejected. Consequently, the petitioner is directed to surrender and to seek for bail.