The State of Bihar v. M/s. Janardan Prasad Singh & Akhileshwar Singh

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1171 of 2012 (7) dt.24-01-2013 of vide order dated 16.12.2008 with a direction that the petitioner will surrender before the court below within four weeks when he shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail upon furnishing the bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) alongwith two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri A.K. Lal, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Barh, Patna, in connection with Complaint Case No.170(C) of 2008 for a period of six months only with further direction that on the date when the petitioner furnishes the bail bonds, notices shall be issued to the complainant through the Counsel representing her in the complaint case and if during this period of six months, based on the subsequent developments, petitioner appears physically and surrender to the jurisdiction of the court below, any application for regular bail on his behalf shall be considered in the light of the subsequent developments and the respective attitude of the parties to be assessed by the court below its own wisdom without being inhibited by this order. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared before the court below and furnished the bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount on 24.12.008 and, accordingly, he was released on bail. After six months, the petitioner as per the direction of this Court made in Criminal Misc. No.48948 of 2008 surrendered before the trial court and his prayer for bail was rejected vide order dated 3 Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1171 of 2012 (7) dt.24-01-2013

15.6.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Bail Petition No.149 of 2009 and the learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail for a period of six months, which was extended time to time till 7.9.2012 and on that date, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Barh, Patna, through the impugned order refused the prayer of the petitioner for further extension of his provisional bail as granted to him earlier and also rejected the prayer of the petitioner for bail with a direction to the petitioner, who is Military Constable, to surrender before the trial court within three months from the date of passing of the order, which is illegal and placed reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (AIR 2011 Supreme Court 312).

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 made submission that the refusal of the prayer of the petitioner for bail is interlocutory in nature and this Criminal Revision is not maintainable.

4. The record of the case is itself an illustrative example. The order of bail is interlocutory in nature because after having admitted the petitioner on the provisional bail, the court has extended the same through different dates and, ultimately, rejected the prayer of the petitioner for bail because of non fulfillment of the 4 Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1171 of 2012 (7) dt.24-01-2013 conditions imposed by this Court vide order dated 16.12.2008 in Criminal Misc. No.48948 of 2008 at the time of granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The order of bail could be revised by the court itself on being satisfied on merit of the case and if no merit is found in the case, the same may be rejected. It is well known that in spite of having rejected the prayer for bail, the same court has jurisdiction to review its order. The decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre (supra), as relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner would not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case as in that case the High Court had declined to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant approached the Hon’ble Apex Court by filing Criminal Appeal, which was allowed with a direction to the appellant to join the investigation and fully co-operate with the investigation agency. In the event of arrest the appellant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. In that case, the Hon’ble Apex Court has also held that the order of granting anticipatory bail is a direction specifically to release the accused on bail in the event of his arrest. Once such a direction of anticipatory bail is executed by the accused and he is released on 5 Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1171 of 2012 (7) dt.24-01-2013 bail, the concerned Court would be fully justified in imposing conditions including direction of joining investigation. In pursuance to the order of the Court of Sessions or the High Court, once the accused is released on bail by the trial court, then it would be unreasonable to compel the accused to surrender before the trial court and again apply for regular bail.

5. The impugned order rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for extension of provisional granted to him earlier and the rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for bail is interlocutory in nature and is not amenable in revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision is dismissed. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the court below and pray for regular bail. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) P.S./-