Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.28951 of 2012 ====================================================== The State Of Bihar Through The Superintendent Of Police, Saharsa, At Saharsa, P.S. Saharsa, District Saharsa. Versus .... .... Petitioner/s Ashutosh Rai @ Bhagwan Rai , s/o Dina Rai @ Dinanath Rai, r/o village-Murli, P.S. Bangaun, District Saharsa. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Dr. Indiwar Kumari, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Arun, Adv ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 6 30-10-2013 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This application has been filed by the State of Bihar for cancellation of bail of the Opposite Party, namely, Ashutosh Rai @ Bhagwan Rai who was earlier granted bail by this Court by an order dated 04.08.2010 Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5080 of 2010 wherein it has been stated that the petitioner has not complied the specific terms and conditions in the said bail order namely, that the petitioner did not report to the concerned Police Station on every Monday and in fact also went on committing crimes repeatedly for which several cases as explained in paragraph no. 8 to 12 of this application were instituted against him. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-State of Bihar has submitted that uninterrupted series of criminal activities of O.P. after being released on bail by this Court by itself would disentitle
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.28951 of 2012 (6) dt.30-10-2013 2 the O.P. to continue with the privilege of bail. In this regard, she has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Aslam Babalal Desai vs the State of Maharastra reported in AIR 1993 SC 1 and three unreported orders of this Court dated 24.09.2012 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 34893 of 2011 as well as another order dated 16.01.2013 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 33188 of 2012 and an order dated 24.04.2013 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 29759 of 2012. 4. This application for cancellation of bail had been filed on 23.07.2012 and notices were issued to the Opposite Party by order dated 18.08.2012. It took almost one year in securing the service of notice upon the opposite party and ultimately on
Legal Reasoning
07.08.2013, Mr. Arun having filed the vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party had sought time till 03.09.2013 to file show cause reply. 5. Today, when the case has been taken up after more than two and a half months, learned counsel for the opposite party has submitted that since the opposite party is in jail, he is unable to file the show cause reply. He has further submitted that the statement made in paragraph nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 as per the oral instruction received by him are factually incorrect, inasmuch as in all these cases the petitioner has already been acquitted. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.28951 of 2012 (6) dt.30-10-2013 3 6. It has to be kept in mind that when the petitioner was granted bail by this Court by an order dated 04.08.2010 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5080 of 2010, wherein, one of the condition was as follows:- "The petitioner on being released on bail will not only report to the concerned Police Station on every Monday of the week but would keep in mind that if he is now made accused in any criminal case during the pendency of the trial in question his bail would automatically stand cancelled." 7. It is not in doubt that pursuant to the order of this Court dated 04.08.2010, the petitioner was released on bail, inasmuch as, in paragraph no. 8, it has been stated that after the opposite party was released on bail he had committed number of offences. To that exetent, it would be relevant to quote paragraph no. 8 to 12, which reads as follows:- "That the opposite party after released on bail committed crime of extortion and attempt murder on 2.10.11 for which Bihra P.S. case no. 92/11 has been registered against the opposite party and others. This case has been lodged by Naymun Nisha with the allegation that the opposite party and others fired upon her in connection with demand of extortion. That on 23.1.12 Dilip Kumar Chaudhary submitted a report that the opposite party and others were putting pressure to writ in favour of the one Rahul Kumar so that he may get bail from the High Court. On refusal by the informant they fired upon him for which Nauhatta P.S. Case No. 6/12 has been instituted u/s 386, 120(B) IPC and 27 Arms Act and after the investigation the charge sheet no. 37/12 has been filed on 28.4.12. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.28951 of 2012 (6) dt.30-10-2013 4 That on 1.2.12 Saharsa Sadar P.S. Case No. 66/12 has been registered u/s 307/34 IPC and 27 of Arms Act. The opposite party is named accused in such case and the allegation against him that he fired on the informant at the main public place. In this case also the police submitted charge sheet on 28.4.12 vide charge sheet no. 118/12. That it is further to be stated that on 20.2.12 extortion money of Rs. 50,000/- was demanded from a lady clinic operator in the name of one Rohit Jha from Mobile No. 8757147145 on the report of Neelam Kumari Saharsa P.S. case no. 112/12 has been registered u/s 387 IPC and during investigation the participation of the opposite party has been established and accordingly a charge sheet no. 179/12 has been submitted on 13.5.12 u/s 386, 120(B) IPC. That on 15.4.12 the opposite party was caught red handed with a loaded Arms and on the basis of statement of Shiv Kumar Yadav, Police Officer, Saharsa P.S. Case No. 235/12 has been instituted against him u/s25(1-B)A/26 Arms Act and after the investigation charge sheet no. 180/12 has been submitted on 13.5.12." 8. Coupled with this fact there is also statement made in paragraph no. 7 of this application that the opposite party had never reported to the concerned Police Station as directed by this Court. As noted above there is no denial to this aspect and that itself would amount to clear violation of the conditions imposed under the order of this Court. Paragraph no. 7 of the application seeking cancellation of bail of the opposite party in this regard reads as follows:- "That it has been informed that after release on bail in Cr. Misc. No. 5080/2010, the opposite party has never reported to the concern police station more over Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.28951 of 2012 (6) dt.30-10-2013 5 he committed several crime of serious nature. It is needless to say that the opposite party has utter disregard with the order of this Hon'ble Court and as such his bail is liable to be cancelled for only such reason." 9. Learned counsel for the O.P. also very fairly submits that he cannot deny that the O.P. has been made accused in five criminal case after he was released on bail under the order of this Court dated 04.08.2010. 10. In view of the above, it would be clear that opposite party has failed to comply with the specific terms and conditions which were imposed upon him while granting him bail. Earning acquittal in fact was not the condition made in the order of this Court and thus if the opposite party was made accused in a series of offences as enumerated in paragraph no. 8 to 12 of this application as quoted above and he also did not report to the concerned police station on every Monday that by itself would be sufficient and a good ground for cancellation of his bail. 11. A person accused in a criminal case after he has been granted bail has to remain vigilant and must ensure that he is not again made accused. There may be a case where a person can be falsely implicated in a case after being released on bail on account of animosity but where series of criminal cases have been filed against the O.P. this Court would find it difficult to accept the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.28951 of 2012 (6) dt.30-10-2013 6 submission of the learned counsel for the O.P. that the O.P. has been framed in all such cases. It is this aspect of the matter which has been gone into by the Apex court in the case of Aslam Babalal Desai (supra). 12. In that view of the matter, this Court on consideration of the material on record as also following the ratio of the Apex Court in the case of Aslam Babalal Desai (supra) has no other option but to cancel the bail of the O.P. 13. That being so, the bail granted to the O.P. namely Ashutosh Rai @ Bhagwan Rai in the order of this Court dated 04.08.2010 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5080 of 2010 is hereby cancelled. 14. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this application is allowed. 15. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Additional Sessions Judge F.T.C-II, Supaul in connection with Sessions Trial No. 147 of 2009 arising out of Bihra P.S. Case No. 179 of 2008. Ranjan/- (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)