Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 434 (RAJ)

Fakir Mohammed v. State

2020-02-28

ABHAY CHATURVEDI, SANDEEP MEHTA

body2020
JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J. - These three miscellaneous applications have been filed by applicant Mr. Fakir Mohammed seeking cancellation of bail granted to the following four accused :- (i) Riyaz Ahmed (D.B. Criminal Misc. Application for cancellation of Suspension of Sentence No.233/2019) (ii) Siraj Ahmed (D.B. Criminal Misc. Application for cancellation of Suspension of Sentence No.234/2019) (iii) Khan Bahadur (D.B. Criminal Misc. Application for cancellation of Suspension of Sentence No.234/2019) (iv) Imtiyaz Ahmed (D.B. Criminal Misc. Application for cancellation of Suspension of Sentence No.235/2019) 2. The respondent accused were convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Banswara vide judgment dated 07.11.2006 for the following offences and were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment with the maximum being the life imprisonment for the charge under Section 302 or 302/34 IPC : (i) Riyaz Ahmed : Sections 302/34 and 324/34 IPC (ii) Siraj Ahmed : Sections 302/34 and 324 IPC (iii) Khan Bahadur : Sections 302/34 and 324/34 IPC (iv) Imtiyaz : Sections 302 and 324 IPC 3. The applicant-complainant has moved these applications for cancellation of bail granted to the respondents accused on the ground that they have indulged in numerous criminal activities during the pendency of this appeal and they have flouted the conditions of the bail orders whereby their sentences were suspended by this court. 4. Mr. Sikandar Khan, learned counsel representing the applicant-complainant, vehemently and fervently urged that if a person convicted for the serious charge of murder reindulges in criminal activities repeatedly even after being released on bail, then this court can exercise powers under Section 439 (2) CrPC so as to cancel the bail granted to such person/persons. He contends that two cases involving the offence under Section 302 IPC have been registered against the accused. In addition thereto, various other cases for serious offences including the offence under Section 307 IPC have also been registered against them while they were enjoying freedom by effect of the orders of suspension of sentences passed by this court in the instant appeal. He, thus, urged that the accused have blatantly misused the liberty so granted to them by this court and hence, they do not deserve to remain on bail during the pendency of this appeal. 5. Mr. He, thus, urged that the accused have blatantly misused the liberty so granted to them by this court and hence, they do not deserve to remain on bail during the pendency of this appeal. 5. Mr. Shaitan Singh Badgujar, learned counsel representing the respondents, is not in a position to dispute the fact that a large number of criminal cases, including two for the offences under Section 302 IPC, have been registered against the respondents accused during pendency of the instant appeal, but his contention was that merely because some criminal cases have been registered against the accused during this interregnum, that by itself cannot be a ground so as to recall or cancel the order of suspension of sentences passed in their favour by this court after conscious application of mind. He contended that it was not stipulated in the orders of suspension of sentences that the accused would not re-indulge in any other criminal case during the pendency of the appeal or that in case, they are found so involved, then it would tantamount to breach of the conditions of the bail order. He further submitted that even in the fresh cases, which have been registered against the accused during this period, they have been enlarged on bail by the trial court as well as by this court on different occasions. He further submitted that as a matter of fact, the complainants of the subsequent cases, which were lodged against the accused for oblique motives, have used the applicant-complainant Mr. Fakir Mohammed as a tool to get these cancellation applications filed because the accused were granted bail by this court in the subsequent cases finding that there was no material available on record to connect them with the crime. He, thus, implored the court to reject the applications for cancellation of bail. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record. 7. The fact that the accused were found involved in large number of criminal cases, including two for the charge under Section 302 IPC, was not disputed by the learned counsel Mr. Badgujar during the course of arguments. Otherwise also, this allegation is duly corroborated by the documents placed on record by the applicant-complainant in support of the applications for cancellation of bail. Badgujar during the course of arguments. Otherwise also, this allegation is duly corroborated by the documents placed on record by the applicant-complainant in support of the applications for cancellation of bail. In addition to the two cases under Section 302 IPC, list of various other cases registered against the accused from the year 2013 onwards has been filed on record. Two of these cases involve the offences under Sections 307 IPC and 3/25 of the Arms Act and charge-sheets have been filed against the accused in all these cases after investigation. 8. It is, therefore, manifest that the accused have continuously indulged in nefarious criminal activities involving grave and serious offences after being released on bail by this court in the appeal against conviction, involving the offence under Section 302 IPC. 9. True it is, that in the orders of suspension of sentences passed by this court, there is no such stipulation that the accused will not re-indulge in any other offence while being on bail, but it is our firm opinion that this condition is inherently entrenched in every bail order, whereby an accused is set at liberty and it is the requirement of law as well as that of a civilized society that a person, who is granted bail by a court of law after being convicted for a serious charge like 302 IPC should conduct himself in a peaceful manner and should refrain from re-indulging in criminal activities. Repeated indulgence of the accused person/persons in criminal activities would invariably lead to an inference that he/they are misusing the liberty of bail granted by the court. The contention of Mr. Badgujar that the accused have been granted bail in the subsequent criminal cases registered against them does not convince us even for a moment that any advantage can be given to the accused on this ground while considering these cancellation applications. We have been taken through a few of the bail orders, but in not even one of them, the fact of the accused having been convicted in the present case involving the offence under Section 302 IPC was considered. 10. The contention of Mr. Badgujar that the complainants of the subsequent criminal cases have got these applications filed for cancellation of bail by manipulating Mr. Fakir Mohammed is far-fetched and unconvincing. 10. The contention of Mr. Badgujar that the complainants of the subsequent criminal cases have got these applications filed for cancellation of bail by manipulating Mr. Fakir Mohammed is far-fetched and unconvincing. There is no material on record of the case, by which we can be satisfied that the complainant has been obliquely motivated in this manner. 11. In wake of the discussion made hereinabove, we are of the firm opinion that having been found involved in numerous repeated criminal activities relating to serious offences, viz. Sections 302, 307 etc., the accused have misused the liberty of bail granted to them by this court vide orders dated 13.02.2007 (D.B. Criminal Misc. Bail (SOS) Application No.123/2007 - Riyaz Ahmed), 01.03.2007 (D.B. Criminal Misc. Bail (SOS) Application No.303/2007 - Siraj Ahmed), 23.09.2008, (D.B. Criminal Misc. Bail (SOS) Application No.918/2008 - Khan Bahadur) and 05.03.2010 (D.B. Criminal Misc. Bail (SOS) Application No.310/2010 - Imtiyaz) respectively, thus, they cannot be allowed to enjoy this liberty any further. 12. Accordingly, these three miscellaneous applications for cancellation of suspension of sentences is allowed. The respective bail (suspension of sentence) orders passed in favour of the respondents-accused are recalled. The respondents accused namely, (i) Riyaz Ahmed (D.B. Criminal Misc. Application for cancellation of Suspension of Sentence No.233/2019), (ii) Siraj Ahmed (D.B. Criminal Misc. Application for cancellation of Suspension of Sentence No.234/2019), (iii) Khan Bahadur (D.B. Criminal Misc. Application for cancellation of Suspension of Sentence No.234/2019) and (iv) Imtiyaz Ahmed (D.B. Criminal Misc. Application for cancellation of Suspension of Sentence No.235/2019) shall surrender before the trial court within a period of thirty days from today, failing which, their bail bonds shall be forfeited and the trial court as well as the Superintendent of Police Banswara shall take immediate steps to re-arrest the accused. A copy of this order alongwith the copies of the bail bonds furnished by the accused shall be forwarded to the trial court forthwith.