Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 594 (RAJ)

Sujan Singh Meena v. State of Rajasthan

2016-04-28

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J. This bail cancellation application has been filed under Sec. 439 (2) Cr.P.C. 2. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR No. 295/2015 was lodged at RS. Suraouth, Karauli for the offences mentioned therein, whereupon the investigation was commenced. During the course of investigation, the accused Ratan Singh @ Sher Singh and Mohammad Anwar were arrested. Thereafter, they jointly moved bail application before the learned court below, which was dismissed on 11.2.2016. Against the aforesaid order one of the accused namely; Mohammad Anwar filed bail application before this Court bearing S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail duplication No. 2360/2016, which was granted by this Court on 18.2.2016. Thereafter, against the same order dated 11.2.2016, accused Ratan Singh @ Sher Singh filed a bail application bearing S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2742/2016 before this Court which was allowed by this Court on 4.3.2016 on terrain conditions, the relevant portion of which is reproduced as under: 3. "Therefore, this bail application is allowed and it is directed that accused petitioner Ratan Singh @ Sher Singh S/o Battu Lal shall be released on bail under Section 439 Cr.PC. in connection with afore-mentioned FIR, provided he furnishes a persona' bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.1,00,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court with the following conditions (i) that the accused petitioner will appear before the concerned SHO concerned once in a month till one year for his personal appearance; (ii) that the concerned SHO shall mark attendance of accused petitioner in Rojnamcha, and if the petitioner fails to appear before the concerned police station, the SHO is directed to inform the PR. The learned PP shall move an application under Sec. 439(2) for cancellation of bail of the petitioner in accordance with law; (iii) that the concerned trial court or the Magistrate where the bail bonds are submitted by the petitioner shall send the copy of this order to the concerned SHO immediately; (iv) that the accused petitioner shall appear before the concerned trial court on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so." 4. Thereafter the instant cancellation bail application has been moved by Sujan Singh on the ground that accused Ratan Singh while moving the bail application before this court, has annexed the copy of forged and fabricated judgment of the court below which has not been issued by the court below on 11.2.2016. 5. Thereafter the instant cancellation bail application has been moved by Sujan Singh on the ground that accused Ratan Singh while moving the bail application before this court, has annexed the copy of forged and fabricated judgment of the court below which has not been issued by the court below on 11.2.2016. 5. Yesterday, this court after this fact came to its knowledge, called the concerned Clerk of the court below, as also the SHO concerned, and passed the detailed order; relevant portion of which is reproduced as under: ^^bl U;k;ky; us bl rF; dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, fd v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds vkns'k esa izkFkhZ ds f[kykQ izdj.k yfEcr gksus dk vadu ugha gS] vfHk;qDr yEcs le; ls tsy esa gS ,oa lg&vfHkqDr dh tekur Lohdkj dj yh xbZ gSA bl dkj.k bl U;k;ky; ds }kjk foi{kh & vfHk;qDr jruflag mQZ 'ksjflag ds tekur izkFkZuki= dks Lohdkj fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk dFku gS fd foi{kh & vfHk;qDr jruflag mQZ 'ksjflag ds fo:) 41 izdj.k ntZ gSa fdUrq foi{kh & vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls bl U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr fd;s x;s tekur izkFkZuki= ds lkFk tks v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds vkns'k fnukad 11-02-2016 dh izekf.kr izfr izLrqr dh xbZ gS mlesa mlds f[kykQ 41 izdj.k ntZ gksus dk vadu ugha gSA mudk dFku gS fd blh vkns'k fnukad 11-02-2016 esa vfHk;qDrx.k dk vig`r O;fDr ls jkthukek gks tkus dk rF; Hkh vafdr fd;k x;k gSA ifjoknh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us blls bUdkj fd;k gSA bl U;k;ky; us bl ekeys ls lEcfU/kr iqfyl Hkkjlk/kd vf/kdkjh vkSj lEcfU/kr DydZ dks ryc fd;kA Jh jkensoflag ,l0,p0vks0 iqfyl Fkkuk lwjksB ,oa lEcfU/kr DydZ Jh fo".kqnkl 'kekZ bl U;k;ky; ds le{k mifLFkr gSaA ewy fjdkMZ Hkh eaxok;k x;kA ewy fjdkMZ esa tks vkns'k gS mlesa foi{kh & vfHk;qDr jruflag mQZ 'ksjflag ds f[kykQ 41 eqdnes yafcr gksus dk vadu gSA U;k;ky; dks ;g ns[kdj /kDdk yxk fd foi{kh & vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds vkns'k fnukad 11-02-2016 dh tks izekf.kr izfr izLrqr dh xbZ gS mlesa foi{kh & vfHk;qDr ds f[kykQ eqdnes yfEcr gksus dk vadu ugha gSA foi{kh & vfHk;qDr jruflag mQZ 'ksjflag ds ckjs esa tkudkjh djkbZ xbZ rks Kkr gqvk fd mDr O;fDr vHkh tsy esa gSA Jh jkensoflag ,l0,p0vks0 iqfyl Fkkuk lwjksB dk ;g Hkh dFku gS fd foi{kh & vfHk;qDr ds f[kykQ 41 ls Hkh vf/kd eqdnes ns'k ds fofHkUu izkUrksa esa fopkjk/khu gSa] og vknru vijk/kh gS] mlus U;k;ky; dks /kks[kk fn;k gSA foi{kh & vfHk;qDr ds tekur vkns'k dks fujLr djus ls iwoZ mls uksfVl tkjh fd;k tkuk mi;qDr gSA vr% mi fucU/kd ¼U;kf;d½ dks funsZ'k fn;k tkrk gS fd os foi{kh & vfHk;qDr dks bl izkFkZuki= ds uksfVl tkjh dj rkehy gsrq Jh jkensoflag ,l0,p0vks0 iqfyl Fkkuk lwjksB dks nLrh iznku djsa tks foi{kh & vfHk;qDr ij lEcfU/kr tsy esa tkdj uksfVl dh vkt gh rkehy djkosA izdj.k dks dy fnukad 28-04-2016 dks lwphc) fd;k tkosA dy Jh jkensoflag ,l0,p0vks0 iqfyl Fkkuk lwjksB] lEcfU/kr DydZ Jh fo".kqnRr 'kekZ e; fjdkMZ ds U;k;ky; ds le{k mifLFkr jgsaA** 6. Mr. Vishnudutt Sharma, court clerk concerned present in court has stated that the bail order dated 11.2.2016 was not issued by the court below which is annexed with the bail application of accused Ratan Singh, and in the said order dated 11.2.2016, it was not mentioned that 41 cases are pending against the accused Ratan Singh, while in the original order dated 11.2.2016 which was passed by court below, it was mentioned that 41 cases are pending against Sher Singh @ Ratan Singh, relevant portion of which reads as under: ^^6- gekjs }kjk mHk;i{k ds rdksZa ij euu fd;k x;k ,oa i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA izdj.k esa bl Lrj ij izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) lqtkuflag dk vigj.k dj ys tkus] iqfyl ikVhZ ij tkuysok geyk djus] voS/k gfFk;kj j[kus] pksjh dk okgu cjken gksus o mDr okgu ij QthZ uEcj IysV yxkdj mi;ksx djus dk vkjksi gksdj /kkjk 364] 365] 307] 323] 420] 467] 468] 471] 411 Hkk0n0la0 o /kkjk 3@25 vk;q/k vf/kfu;e ds vkjksi gSaA vfHk;qDr 'ksjflag mQZ jruflag ds vkijkf/kd jsdkMZ ds vuqlkj mlds fo:) fofHkUu Fkkuksa esa dqy 41 eqdneksa dh lwpuk izLrqr dh x;h gSA vr% bl Lrj ij izdj.k ds xq.kkoxq.k ij dksbZ jk; O;Dr fd;s fcuk izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) vkjksfir vijk/k dh xEHkhjrk ,oa izdj.k ds lexz rF;ksa] ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDrx.k dks tekur dk ykHk fn;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ugha ik;k tkrk gSA 7- vr% izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDrx.k 1&jruflag mQZ 'ksjflag o 2&eksgEen vuoj iq= eksgEen jQhd }kjk izLrqr tekur dk ;g izFke vkosnu i= vUrxZr /kkjk 439 n0iz0la9 vLohdkj dj [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA** 7. During the course of arguments on the bail application, this Court has asked a question from Mr. Ramavatar Meena-counsel appearing for the accused respondent No. 2 Ratan Singh @ Sher Singh that who has contacted in the office and delivered the papers of the case file relating to bail of accused respondent No.2 Ratan Singh @ Sher Singh then he replied that one Mr. Udai Bhan Singh who is brother of Ratan Singh @ Sher Singh came in his office and handed over the alleged forged and fabricated order dated 11.2.2016 and thereafter, he has moved the bail application on behalf of Ratan Singh @ Sher Singh. Mr. Udai Bhan Singh who is brother of Ratan Singh @ Sher Singh came in his office and handed over the alleged forged and fabricated order dated 11.2.2016 and thereafter, he has moved the bail application on behalf of Ratan Singh @ Sher Singh. Mr. Ramavtar Meena, Advocate has submitted that neither he had prepared the alleged forged order nor advised any person to do so and the aforesaid forged and fabricated order was never in his knowledge. 8. Mr. Rajendra Singh Tanwar-counsel appearing for the complainant petitioner has submitted that the accused respondent No.2 Ratan Singh @ Sher Singh has not only cheated this Court but also submitted an affidavit before the learned court below regarding complainant petitioner and the accused respondent Ratan Singh @ Sher Singh entering into a compromise. Counsel has further submitted that the complainant petitioner did not put any signature on the compromise. Counsel has also submitted that the accused respondent No. 2 Ratan Singh @ Sher Singh in this manner has not only deceived the prosecution but also the judiciary. In addition to aforesaid submissions, counsel has further submitted he has neither submitted any compromise before the court below nor before this Court. 9. Looking to the aforesaid situation, Mr. R.S. Sekhawat learned P.P. appearing for the State has requested to the court to recall the order dated 4.3.2016 passed by this Court by which bail was granted to the accused respondent Ratan Singh @ Sher Singh. 10. I have heard learned counsel for contesting parties, including the learned PP, of the case and have also gone through the complete facts of the case. 11. In my considered opinion, looking to the fact that bail was obtained from this Court by the accused respondent Ratan Singh @ Sher Singh after playing fraud with the Court, at this stage it is a fit case where the application for cancellation of bail filled by the complainant petitioner Sujan Singh Meena @ Gutya deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed and the order dated 4.3.2016 passed by this Court by which benefit of bail was granted to the accused respondent Ratan Singh @ Sher Singh is recalled with the following directions : 1. Learned Addl. Learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge No. 1, Hinduan City is directed to lodge an FIR against person/s who have committed the forgery and person/s who is/are directly or indirectly involved in the matter; 2. The jurisdictional Magistrate is directed to monitor the investigation; and 3. The SHO concerned is directed to submit the progress report of the investigation before the jurisdictional Magistrate. 4. Deputy Registrar (Judicial) is directed to send a copy of this order to the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge No. 1, Hinduan City as also to Magistrate concerned for compliance as also to do needful in the matter.