9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1819X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e should have been impleaded as Respondent along with the State in the revision. In other words, the Complainant also had a right of hearing in the Revision because the order impugned in the Revision was passed by the Session Judge on his application. This aspect of the case was, however, not noticed by the Single Judge. The High Court had no jurisdiction to direct the Sessions Judge to allow the application for grant of bail. Indeed, once such direction had been issued by the High Court then what was left for the Sessions Judge to decide except to follow the directions of the High Court and grant bail to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. In other words, in compliance to the mandatory directions issued by the High Court, the Sessions Judge had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Shalu Sharma, Advs. For the Respondents : Ritesh Agrawal, S. Rishabh, Ajay Kapoor and Milind Kumar, Advs. JUDGMENT Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is filed by the Complainant against the final judgment and order dated 28.04.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 477 of 2017 whereby the High Court partly allowed the criminal revision petition filed by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein and set aside that part of the order dated 19.11.2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur in Session Trial No. 44/2016 whereby the Session Judge while allowing the application filed Under Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial because, according to him, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are also involved in the commission of the offence along with other two Accused. 7. The Sessions Judge, by order dated 19.11.2016, allowed the application finding prima facie case against Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and accordingly summoned both by issuing non-bailable warrant of arrest against them. 8. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 felt aggrieved and filed Criminal Revision Under Section 197 of the Code in the High Court at Rajasthan out of which this appeal arises. The Complainant-Appellant herein at whose instance the order was passed by the Sessions Judge was, however, not impleaded as party in the revision. 9. By impugned order, the Single Judge allowed the revision in part and set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at after thorough investigation made by the Police, charge-sheet for the offences punishable Under Sections 363, 366, 368, 370(4), 376, 120-B Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 and 16/17 of the POCSO Act was filed only against Vimlesh Kumar and Janak Singh. Accused/Petitioners, Ashish Meena and Vimal Meena, were not charge-sheeted. Vide order impugned dated 19.11.2016, Petitioners have been summoned through non-bailable warrants for the offences mentioned above. 5. Taking all the facts and circumstances of the case into consideration in totality, it appears that the order to the extent of summoning the Petitioners, Ashish Meena and Vimal Meena, through non-bailable warrants does not appear justified and is liable to be quashed and set asi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... right of hearing in the Revision because the order impugned in the Revision was passed by the Session Judge on his application. This aspect of the case was, however, not noticed by the Single Judge. 15. Second and more importantly was that the Single Judge grossly erred in giving direction to the Sessions Judge to consider the bail application of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and allow it on the same day . 16. In our considered opinion, the High Court had no jurisdiction to direct the Sessions Judge to allow the application for grant of bail. Indeed, once such direction had been issued by the High Court then what was left for the Sessions Judge to decide except to follow the directions of the High Court and grant bail to Respondent No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ., to grant or reject, the Sessions Judge has to apply his independent judicial mind and accordingly pass appropriate reasoned order keeping in view the facts involved in the case and the legal principles applicable for grant/rejection of the bail. In this case, the Single Judge failed to keep in his mind this legal principle. 20. It is for this reason, in our view, such directions were wholly uncalled for and should not have been given. This Court cannot countenance issuing of such direction by the High Court. 21. In our view, at best, the High Court could have made an observation to the effect that the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (Accused persons) are at liberty to approach the Sessions Judge for grant of bail and, if any application is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
