9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (10) TMI 811X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yurvedic college, charitable eye hospital named after Baba Mast Nath; he has undertaken projects for setting up a blind school, orphanage, deaf and dumb school, Shree Mast Nath Medical College and Shree Baba Mast Nath Deemed University; and claims to serve the poor and downtrodden persons to uplift their educational status. It is also stated that the various institutions run by Math do not receive any aid from the Government or Non-Governmental Organizations. He contested election in the year 1999 to Haryana State Assembly as an Independent candidate against the wishes of Shri Om Prakash Chautala who wanted him to contest from his party. It is further alleged that Shri Chautala demanded money and the appellant No. 1 invited his wrath by refusing to meet his demand. He states that Shri O.P. Kaushik, the Vice-Chancellor of M.D. University, Rohtak, also demanded huge sum of money from him who subsequently contested Assembly election in the year 1999 on the party ticket of Shri Om Prakash Chautala. Shri Kaushik had passed orders canceling admissions made to the institutions run by the appellant No. 1 which were subsequently set aside by the courts. He is falsely involved in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , CID/Crime, Faridabad and found that the appellants were not involved and found them innocent after the investigation was verified by the superior officers. However, on finding that the disclosure statement of Kishan was wrong, on an application made for discharge, the CJM, Rewari passed the order of discharge on 3.11.1999 which reads as under:- An application for discharge of the accused has been filed which is allowed as the accused has been found innocent during the investigation of the case and, therefore, the accused is discharged. He be released forthwith if not required in the other case. File after needful be consigned to the record room. In February, 2001, the appellant No. 1 received threatening demand over phone to pay ₹ 10/- crores by March, 2001 failing which he would be kidnapped and murdered. On this, he filed a complaint and F.I.R. No. 42 dated 5.2.2001 was registered under Section 387 IPC. He requested for adequate security. On police refusing to do so, he approached the District and Sessions Judge who directed the S.P., Rohtak to provide adequate security. Even then, no security was provided to him. The police at the behest of senior politicians ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, while confirming bail. Thus the bail order dated 5.6.2001 remained undisturbed; despite the same, police tried to arrest the appellants; hence they filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 52331-M/2001 under Section 438 R/w 482 Cr.P.C. restraining the respondents from arresting them. The High Court on 28.12.2001 issued notice on the application returnable by 8.3.2002 and directed the respondent not to arrest the appellants in the meanwhile. The respondent-State filed an application on 4.1.2002 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for clarification/modification of order dated 21.12.2001 to the effect that the order dated 5.6.2001 granting bail by the Addl. Sessions Judge is also set aside; Criminal Misc. Application No. 52331-M/2001 be heard along with the application filed for clarification; notice issued for 8.3.2002 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.L.Anand be preponed and for some other directions. The High Court by the order dated 22.2.2002 allowed the application filed for clarification holding that by oversight or omission, the order dated 9.4.2001 was mentioned instead of 5.6.2001 and that the real intention was to cancel the order dated 5.6.2001. By the same order dated 22.2.2002, the learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Criminal Misc. Petition before the High Court; he finally submitted that the police officials at the instance of politicians are bent upon to harass the appellants by getting them into police custody. In opposition, the learned counsel for the State seriously contended that the appellant No. 1 is a very influential person and is not cooperating in investigation; in order to investigate, particularly as regards the offence under Section 120-B IPC in the facts and circumstances of the case, the custodial interrogation of the appellants is very much required; he took pains to narrate the details about the prosecution case and the investigation done so far. He made submissions in support and justification of the impugned orders. He maintained that the accidental error could be corrected by the High Court on the application filed for clarification by the State; the powers of High Court to cancel the bail are wide enough to cover the cases like the one on hand particularly when the order of bail granted by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was not based on proper judicial discretion. He urged that in the interest of justice, the impugned orders may be sustained. He reiterated the subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ements without leading to any recovery may not turn out to be a lawful evidence; the statement of third person was prima facie tested in the light of the facts though witness Jai Parkash joined investigation some time in June, 1999; he made the statement for the first time on 13.3.2001 and his statement runs contrary to the certificate issued by the Branch Manager in regard to conversion of cash of ₹ 20,00,000/- from currency notes of ₹ 100/- to currency notes of ₹ 500/- which amount alleged to have been paid to the killer and if there was threat to witness Jai Parkash to the knowledge of the police, they could have taken steps; keeping in view the decisions cited at the bar and the totality of the circumstances, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge exercised judicial discretion in granting bail to the appellants on 9.4.2001. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rewari, by his order dated 5.6.2001 confirmed the aforesaid order dated 9.4.2001 passed by his predecessor. In the order dated 5.6.2001, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has again objectively considered the submissions made on either side in the light of the facts of the case. In the said order, it is observed tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the orders of the learned Addl. Sessions Judges dated 9.4.2001 and 5.6.2001 and records, we do not get any impression that the judicial discretion, in granting anticipatory bail was exercised either erroneously or on any irrelevant consideration. The serious contention advanced before us by the learned Public Prosecutor is that for further investigation of the case, custodial interrogation of the appellant is very much required. While stating the facts in the beginning, we have noticed that the appellants joined investigation whenever required and as a matter of fact they were interrogated on two occasions for sufficient time. The appellants were named as accused for committing offence under Section 120-B IPC almost after a period of four and half months from the date of the murder, that too based on the disclosure statement of hardened criminal; the statement of Kishan on whose statement the appellants were involved in the offence was proved to be false and police got him discharged. The submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that earlier investigation made by the police officers and scrutinized by the superiors was faulty and mala fide, is not a ground to put against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ained bail by dubious means . This observation is not based on any finding. When the learned Addl. Sessions Judges have passed the orders granting anticipatory bail exercising judicial discretion, there is no warrant to say that such an order of bail is obtained by dubious means. The High Court, except referring to two decisions as to the position of law, failed to notice the facts and relevant aspects of the case on hand to apply them. This Court in Subhendu Mishra vs. Subrat Kumar Mishra Anr. [2000 SCC (Cri) 1508] following the principles stated in Dolat Ram Ors. vs. State of Haryana [(1995) 1 SCC 349] has reiterated that there is a distinction between rejection of bail in a non- bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail already granted. Normally, very cogent and overwhelming grounds or circumstances are required to cancel the bail already granted. In the present case, the High Court, it appears, did not bear this distinction in mind and cancelled the bail in a mechanical manner. Thus, in our view, the High Court committed a manifest and serious error in passing the impugned orders setting aside the anticipatory bail granted to the appellants by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
