The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1438 of 2024 1. Sunita Kumari, aged about 36 years, wife of Santosh Kumar Mehta, resident of Baldeo Prasad Mehta House, Bakhri Muhalla, Bada Kuan, P.O, P.S.-Lapung & Dist.-Hazaribagh 2. Anita Kumari @ Anita Kumari Mehta, aged about 39 years, wife of Dilip Kumar Mehta, resident of Adarsh Colony Korra, P.O.-Korra, P.S.-Sadar, Dist.-Hazaribagh 3. Ajay Kumar Mehta, aged about 35 years, son of Yugal Kishore Prasad Mehta, resident of near Jhinjhiriya Pul, behind Bajaj Motorcycle Showroom Korra, P.O., P.S.-Korra, Dist.-Hazaribagh .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Anshu Arya, age not know to the petitioner, daughter of Umesh Kumar, resident of Village-Merawal, Sindur, P.O. & P.S.-Korra, Dist.-Hazaribagh …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T
Legal Reasoning
found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 498A/34 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner no.3 was present in the court in person and filed his hazri and the petitioner nos.1 and 2 were represented by their lawyer, the same was allowed but subsequently, the complainant filed attendance of three witnesses and a call was made but as the petitioners did not turn up nor their Advocates turned up hence, the bail granted to the petitioners was cancelled and the non- bailable warrant of arrest was issued against them. 4. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners by relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Krishna Sharma @ Krishna Kumar Sharma vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. in Criminal Appeal No. 383 of 2024 arising out of SLP (Crl) No.12829 of 2023 dated 24.01.2024 that in that case as the accused persons did not appear in the Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Cr.M.P. No.1438 of 2024 2 Court of India observed that in such a case, the bail ought not have been cancelled. 5. Leaned counsel for the petitioners next relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Karan Singh @ Tinku vs. The State of Jharkhand in Cr.M.P. No. 1340 of 2017 wherein in the facts of that case though a representation petition under Section 317 Cr.P.C. was allowed and without there being any direction of the petitioner to physically appear while refusing to entertain the application under Section 317 Cr.P.C., the bail granted to the petitioner was cancelled by the trial court, this Court observed that as in that case, the petitioner filed a petition to be represented by his Advocate to dispense with his personal appearance and the same having been brought to the notice of the trial court, the application filed by the petitioner having not been allowed and on the same day, the learned Magistrate could not have passed the subsequent order by which bail bond of the petitioner was cancelled. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Deepak Kumar Choubey @ Dipak Kumar Choubey vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. in Cr.M.P. No. 1532 of 2023 and the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Deepak Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2022) 8 SCC 559 wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that the bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Diksha Kumari @ Disksha Kumari vs. The State of Jharkhand & Cr.M.P. No.1438 of 2024 3 Anr. in this respect as well. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand opposes the prayer to quash the order dated 18.08.2023 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh in connection with Complaint Case No. 2465 of 2021. It is next submitted by learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the facts of the cases of the judgment of which was relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is entirely different from the fact of this case as in those cases the witnesses were not present in court while bail of the accused persons of those cases were rejected and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has not laid down as to what course has to be adopted by the trial court when the accused persons are in attendance and has filed application to dispense with their personal attendance and the witnesses are present but the accused persons or their Advocates who have filed the petition to dispense with the attendance of the accused persons did not turn up to frustrate the examination of the witnesses. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 8. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that in this case so far as the petitioner nos.1 and 2 are concerned their personal appearance was dispensed with and they were represented by their Advocates. Under such circumstances, when Cr.M.P. No.1438 of 2024 4 they did not appear before the court when three witnesses filed their hazri certainly the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh was entitled to take coercive steps or else no trial can take place in any contested case, if the courts will be made toothless and helpless; in situations when the witnesses are to be returned without being any examination because of non-cooperation of the accused persons. But the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners undertake to appear before the court below within a week and they are ready to compensate the expenses incurred by the three witnesses who were present in the court on 18.08.2023 by paying Rs.1,000/- each by way of demand draft in their names. 9. Keeping in view the offences involved in this case being the offence punishable under Sections 323, 498A/34 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and the facts of this case, this Court is of the considered view that this criminal miscellaneous petition be disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to surrender before the trial court on or before 27.08.2024 and in case they jointly file three separate demand drafts of Rs.1,000/- each drawn in favour of each of the witnesses who were present on that date and file a fresh bail application, they may be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- each with other condition, if any, to be imposed by the trial court. 10. In view of the disposal of this criminal miscellaneous petition, I.A. No. 5032 of 2024 which was filed for early hearing of this criminal
Arguments
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioner For the State For O.P. No.2 : Ms. Aprajita Bharadwaj, Advocate : Mr. Sameer Ranjan, Advocate : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P. : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate : Mr. Sheo Kumar Paswan, Advocate ….. By the Court:- 1. Heard the parties. Cr.M.P. No.1438 of 2024 1 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 18.08.2023 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh in connection with Complaint Case No. 2465 of 2021, by which the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh has cancelled the bail granted to the petitioners and issued non-bailable warrant of arrest. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are accused of Complaint Case No. 2465 of 2021 in which the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh has
Decision
miscellaneous petition is disposed of being infructuous. Cr.M.P. No.1438 of 2024 5 11. In case the petitioners deposit the demand draft drawn in favour of the witnesses who were present, the trial court is directed to hand over the same to the witnesses as and when they appear before the trial court after notice. 12. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 7th August, 2024 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- Cr.M.P. No.1438 of 2024 6