Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2018 DIGILAW 802 (SC)

Ram Chandra Meena v. High Court Of Rajasthan

2018-05-03

N.V.RAMANA, S.ABDUL NAZEER

body2018
ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is against the impugned judgment and final order dated 31.01.2018, passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Cancellation No. 178 of 2017, wherein the High Court had initiated a suo moto proceedings for cancellation of bail and ultimately cancelled the bail granted to the appellant herein. 3. The present order impugned in this appeal is that the appellant who is a Sub-Divisional Magistrate against whom F.I.R. was registered under Sections 7, 13(1) (D) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code and during investigation, the appellant was arrested on 29-9-2017. Thereafter, on 7-10-2017, the Trial Court while granting bail to the appellant, rejected the bail of co-accused (Mr. Lallu Ram). 4. Aggrieved by the rejection of the bail to the other co-accused (Mr. Lallu Ram), co-accused (Mr. Lallu Ram) approached the High Court seeking bail under Section 439 of CrPC in Misc. Bail Application No. 16765 of 2015. On 13.12.2017, the High Court while rejecting the bail for the co-accused (Mr. Lallu Ram), passed following order- 5. I have considered the contentions. The ACB after due investigation has submitted charge-sheet against the present petitioner. From the transcript it is evident that he demanded money and the money has been recovered from him. Hence, I am not inclined to grant benefit of second bail to the petitioner. 6. The second bail application is rejected. 7. However, since the co-accused has been granted bail by the trial Court even though he has criminal antecedent and from the transcript Also his communication with the complaint is made out. The Court deems it proper to suomoto institute bail cancellation application. 8. Let notice be issued to co-accused SDM Ramchandra Meena and the office is directed to register the bail cancellation against him. (emphasis supplied) 5. Subsequently, the High Court, suomoto taking up the matter, cancelled the bail granted to the appellant by the Trial Court on 7-10-2017. Challenging the said order of the High Court, the present appeal is filed by the appellant. (emphasis supplied) 5. Subsequently, the High Court, suomoto taking up the matter, cancelled the bail granted to the appellant by the Trial Court on 7-10-2017. Challenging the said order of the High Court, the present appeal is filed by the appellant. In view of the matter which was taken up suomoto by the High Court, the present appellant has filed this appeal against the Registrar of the High Court, who was a party, and on our directions, the State of Rajasthan was made a party and learned counsel appearing for the State has filed counter affidavit. 6. Heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the State of Rajasthan at length. 7. It is apparent from the perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the State. In the counter affidavit, it is stated by the learned counsel that investigation in the matter is already completed and the charge-sheet has already been filed before the Sub Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Bharatpur and thereafter in view of cancellation of bail, the appellant has surrendered before the Trial Court on 12-4-2017 and he is in custody. Learned counsel appearing for the State has not denied the fact that the State has not moved any application seeking cancellation of bail granted to the appellant. It is only due to suomoto taking up the matter, the present impugned order was passed by the High Court. 8. We are surprised to know that once the State, who is the prosecuting agency, has not filed any application for cancellation of bail, it was not appropriate on the part of the High Court to take up the matter suomoto and cancelled the bail of the appellant which was unnecessary and unwarranted. 9. Taking into consideration the fact that investigation is already completed in the matter and the charge-sheet having already been filed, we feel there is no reason to initiate a suomoto proceeding to cancel the bail. Moreover, in the facts and circumstances we are not appraised of any fact concerning misuse of the liberty granted by the trial court in the interregnum period when the bail was granted to the appellant herein. 10. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and direct that the appellant be released forthwith subject to the conditions to be imposed by the concerned Trial Court. 10. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and direct that the appellant be released forthwith subject to the conditions to be imposed by the concerned Trial Court. Further it is clarified that we have not observed anything on the merits of the case. 11. The appeal is disposed of in the afore-stated terms.