1. Dharmendra Prasad @ Dharmender Prashad 2. Pokhraj Mahto 3. Krishna Kumar 4. Suresh v. … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 619 of 2023 ------ 1. Dharmendra Prasad @ Dharmender Prashad 2. Pokhraj Mahto 3. Krishna Kumar 4. Suresh Mahto 5. Kedar Sao 6. Krishna Murari 7. Sikandar Mahato @ Sikendra Matho 8. Mahendra Prasad Dangi 9. Rishi Kumar @ Rishee Kumar 10. Bhim Prakash @ Bhim Mahto 11. Vinay Kumar Thakur 12. Pankaj Kumar Thakur @ Pankaj Thakur 13. Dineshwar Mahato @ Dineshwar Dangi 14. Birendra Kumar Dangi @ Virendra Prasad Dangi 15. Kuldip Kumar Mahto @ Kuldip Kumar … Petitioners The State of Jharkhand Versus … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioners For the State
Legal Reasoning
order passed by this Court in A.B.A. No. 7122 of 2021 and this Court can neither sit in appeal over its own order nor can it review its own order which was passed in A.B.A. No. 7122 of 2021. It is further submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, that otherwise also, it is a settled principle of law, that the persons who come to court without clean hands are not entitled to any relief from court and here in this case, the petitioner has not only come to court with unclean hands, but rather went a step ahead by practicing fraud upon this court. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit and filed with a mala fide intention be dismissed. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the petitioners have voluntarily undertaken to pay and deposit the money and only upon their undertaking, the anticipatory bail order was passed and this Court cannot sit in an appeal upon its own order nor it can review its own order and judgments. This second criminal miscellaneous petition filed by the petitioners is in shape of an appeal against the order of this Court passed in A.B.A. No. 7122 of 2021. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, such a petition is not maintainable before this Court and this Court does not find any justifiable reason to modify its order dated 27.09.2021, passed in A.B.A. No. 7122 of 2021, more so because of the conduct of the petitioners for not having come to court with clean hands. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed. Sonu-Gunjan/ (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Arguments
------ : Mr. Abhishek Krishna Gupta, Advocate : Mrs. Mohua Palit, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.04 Dated- 28.07.2023 Heard the parties. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed under section 482 Cr.P.C by the petitioners with a prayer for modification of the order dated 27.09.2021, passed in A.B.A. No. 7122 of 2021 in connection with Barkagaon P.S. Case No. 133 of 2021 whereby and where under, this Court upon the petitioners undertaking to deposit Rs.40,000/- each by way of four separate demand drafts of Rs.10,000/- each in favour of the victims and also undertaking to deposit of Rs.10,000/- each with Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh granted the petitioners and also the co-petitioner of that anticipatory bail application, the privilege of anticipatory bail in the said order dated 27.09.2021, subject to such deposit. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that after passing of the said order in A.B.A. No. 7122 of 2021, the petitioners could not surrender before the learned trial court as they could not manage to arrange money to deposit in terms of the order dated 27.09.2021, passed in A.B.A. No. 7122 of 2021 by which the petitioners were given the privilege of anticipatory bail. It is next submitted that thereafter the petitioners filed Cr.M.P. No. 3253 of 2021 with a prayer to extend the time period for the petitioners to surrender in terms of the order dated 27.09.2021, passed in A.B.A. No. 7122 of 2021. Learned counsel for the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No. 3253 of 2021 submitted before this Court that the petitioners will file a supplementary affidavit annexing therewith copy of the four demand draft each drawn in favour of the victims as mentioned in the order dated 27.09.2021, passed in A.B.A. No. 7122 of 2021 and also will file proof of deposit of Rs. 10,000/- each with Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh in connection with Barkagaon P.S. Case No. 133 of 2021 and upon such submission being made by the learned counsel for the petitioners six weeks’ peremptory time was granted to the petitioners for the same but the petitioners did not comply with the said peremptory order and consequently, Cr.M.P. No. 3253 of 2021 was dismissed. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the condition imposed by this Court is not within the scope of bail jurisprudence. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Talat Sanvi vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. dated 24.01.2023 in Criminal Appeal No. 205 of 2023 and submits that in the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that the concept of ad interim compensation is alien to bail jurisprudence. It is then submitted that the order dated 27.09.2021, passed in A.B.A. No. 7122 of 2021 is contrary to the statutory provision and against the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. It is next submitted that the condition of bail is unsustainable in law. Hence, it is submitted that the said prescribed time to surrender in the court below in terms of the order dated 27.09.2021, passed in A.B.A. No. 7122 of 2021 passed by this Court be modified so as to avail the privilege of anticipatory bail by the petitioners. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India, law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is binding on all courts within the territory of India. Learned counsel for the petitioners further relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sujit Kumar Mehta @ Sujit Mahto vs. State of Jharkhand in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 4015 of 2023 dated 05.04.2023 wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has directed Registry of Supreme Court of India to intimate the said order to the Registrar General of Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi who shall place the matter before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court, who may consider passing appropriate directions as in most of the High Courts, the practice followed is that all the matters arising out of the same FIR are placed before the same learned Judge so that contrary orders are avoided. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case Makhijani Pushpak Harish vs. The State of Gujarat in Criminal Appeal No.1193 of 2023 dated 19.04.2023 wherein when the regular bail was granted to the accused of the case on the condition that the appellant submits a bank guarantee of an amount of Rs.3 crores along with certain other condition, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that such precondition of deposit of an amount of furnishing bank guarantee has been subject matter of consideration of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a number of cases where condition of pre deposit has been held to be bad. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case Bimla Tiwari vs. State of Bihar & Ors., in Special Leave Petition (CRL.) Nos.834-835 of 2023 dated 16.01.2023 wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated that the process of criminal law cannot be utilized for arm-twisting and money recovery particularly, while passing the prayer for bail. Hence, it is submitted that modification as prayed for be allowed. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for modification of the order dated 27.09.2021, passed in A.B.A. No. 7122 of 2021. It is next submitted by the learned Addl. P.P. that in this case, the petitioners were given the privilege of anticipatory bail upon their voluntarily undertaking to make the payment and deposits and the petitioners reiterated their undertaking by filing Cr.M.P. No. 3253 of 2021 and upon deliberately making such false undertaking by practicing fraud upon the court the petitioners got the breather from arrest by way of order dated 27.09.2021, passed in A.B.A. No. 7122 of 2021, but now the petitioners are acting smart by taking a U-turn and are going back from their undertaking by not complying with their undertaking and challenging the order of this Court, in this court itself, by making submission before this Court that the order of this Court is not sustainable in law, which is a contemptuous submission. It is further submitted by learned Addl. P.P. that this criminal miscellaneous petition is in fact in shape of an appeal against the