Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1577 (RAJ)

Madan Lal v. State Of Rajasthan

2017-07-14

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2017
JUDGMENT ORDER Sandeep Mehta, J. - The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by the Link Officer presiding as Sessions Judge, Jodhpur by order dated 04.04.2016. The complainant filed a cancellation of bail application before the Sessions Court which came to be heard by the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur District and he, by order dated 12.08.2016, cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to the present petitioner. Upon this, the accused petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant revision in order to question the legality and validity of the order dated 12.08.2016. 2. Ms. Vandana Bhansali, learned counsel representing the petitioner urges that the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur apart from being grossly illegal, reflects gross judicial indiscipline. The petitioner had been granted anticipatory bail by an officer in rank of Higher Judicial Services after due consideration of the entire record. The bail order was not obtained by either fraud or mis-representation. Thus, there was no occasion for the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur District to have entertained the application filed under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. and cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner. In support of her contention, she relies upon the Supreme Court''s judgment rendered in Ramcharan vs. State of M.P. reported in (2004)12 SCC 617. She further urges that the original documents the reference whereof is given in the bail cancellation order have already been submitted to the I.O. who is present in the Court and verifies this fact. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor supports the arguments advanced by Ms. Bhansali. He also urges that the powers of cancellation of bail could not be exercised in the manner which has been done while passing the order dated 12.08.2016 and the order granting bail cannot be reversed on merits and more particularly by a presiding officer having the same rank in the judicial hierarchy. 4. Learned counsel representing the complainant vehemently opposes the submissions advanced by the petitioner''s counsel and contends that the anticipatory bail was procured by the petitioner by making mis-representation that the original documents had been recovered by the I.O. Thus, he urges that the revision may be dismissed. 5. I have heard and considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record as well as the impugned orders. 6. 5. I have heard and considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record as well as the impugned orders. 6. The I.O. present in the Court states that pursuant to the order granting anticipatory bail, the petitioner appeared before him for investigation. Thorough investigation was conducted from the accused and the original documents have been recovered. Apparently, the impugned order depicts arbitrariness and gross judicial indiscipline. The presiding officer who allowed the bail application of the petitioner by order dated 04.04.2016 is an officer in the rank of Higher Judicial Services. He is undoubtedly not subordinate to the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur who passed the order dated 12.08.2016. Obviously, the order dated 12.08.2016 was not passed in the appellate jurisdiction but rather appears to have been passed in a fashion as if the Sessions Judge exercised powers of review and recalled the order passed by an officer of equal rank in hierarchy. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramcharan (supra) relied upon by Ms. Bhansali has categorically ruled that bail can only be cancelled on existence of cogent and overwhelming circumstances and not on re-appreciation of the facts of the case. On going through the order dated 04.04.2016 whereby, the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail, I am of the firm opinion that the petitioner did not make any misrepresentation whatsoever while craving anticipatory bail. The fact regarding no recovery pending was an observation made by the presiding officer after perusal of the case diary. Thus, the petitioner cannot be attributed any mis-representation whatsoever while seeking anticipatory bail. The petitioner has admittedly appeared before the I.O. for investigation. The original documents have been recovered. Law is well settled that bail can ordinarily be cancelled only if the accused misuses the liberty of bail granted to him or violates the condition of the bail order. None of these grounds were portrayed while challenging the order granting bail to the petitioner before the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur in Misc. Case No.454/2016. 7. As a consequence of the above discussion, I am of the firm opinion that the impugned order dated 12.08.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur is absolutely without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. 8. Consequently, the instant revision petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. Case No.454/2016. 7. As a consequence of the above discussion, I am of the firm opinion that the impugned order dated 12.08.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur is absolutely without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. 8. Consequently, the instant revision petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 12.08.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur District in Criminal Misc. Case No.454/2016 is set aside and the order dated 04.04.2016 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No.189/2016 is restored. Stay application is disposed of.