Rajesh Anand vs Rakesh Madan Lal Anand
2023 Latest Caselaw 159 j&K

                                                                       Sr. No. 3


     HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                     AT JAMMU

                                                     Crl R No. 5/2023
                                                     CrlM No. 158/2023

Rajesh Anand                                     .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)

q
                      Through: Petitioner Present in person.
                 vs
Rakesh Madan Lal Anand                                      ..... Respondent(s)
                      Through: None.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE

                                  ORDER

1. The petitioner has filed the instant revision petition against order dated

02.01.2023 passed by the court of learned 2nd Additional Sessions

Judge, Jammu, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner

against the order of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Special Municipal

Mobile Magistrate) Jammu granting bail to the respondent/accused has

been upheld and the revision petition has been dismissed.

2. I have heard the petitioner in person and perused the record of the

case.

3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the order passed by the

learned Magistrate while granting bail to the respondent/accused is

devoid of any reasons and that the same has been passed in a

mechanical manner. In this regard, the petitioner has relied upon

various judgments of the Supreme Court, wherein it has been

emphasized that the orders sans reasons passed by the courts are

unsustainable in law.

4. At the very outset, it is to be noted that vide order dated 23.12.2021

passed by the learned Magistrate, bail was granted to the

CrlM No. 158/2023

respondent/accused on an application moved by him for cancellation

of non bailable warrants and for grant of bail. It is also pertinent to

mention here that the respondent/accused had been summoned in a

private criminal complaint titled "Rajesh Anand vs. Rakesh Madan Lal

Anand" alleging commission of offences under Sections 420 and 109

RPC. Learned trial Magistrate vide order impugned simply directed

the accused to furnish bail bonds and personal bonds in the amount of

Rs. 25,000/-, which were furnished by the accused/respondent and

accepted by the Magistrate. The said order came to be challenged by

the petitioner by way of a revision petition before the learned 2nd

Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu and the revision petition came to

be dismissed in terms of the order impugned.

5. Section 397 of the Cr. P.C. which vests power with the High Court and

Sessions Judge to exercise the power of revision against the orders of

inferior criminal courts situated within their jurisdiction, engrafts a

legal bar to maintainability of the second revision petition. Sub

Section (3) of Section 397 of Cr.P.C. is relevant in this regard, which

is reproduced as under:

"(3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them."

6. From a perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that if a revision

petition has been made by a person to the High Court or the Sessions

Judge, no further application can be entertained from the same person.

In the instant case, the petitioner invoked revisional jurisdiction of the

Sessions Judge against the order of the learned trial Magistrate and

once the revision petition was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, the

CrlM No. 158/2023

second revision petition by the petitioner before this Court is not

maintainable, the same being barred by the provisions contained in

Section 397(3) of Cr.P.C. Thus instant petition is not maintainable.

7. Even otherwise, on merits also the offences alleged to have been

committed by the respondent/accused are punishable with

imprisonment up to 7 years, and in view of law laid down by the

Supreme Court in "Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and others"

reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 it is only in exceptional circumstances

that arrest and detention of an accused can be authorized by the

Magistrate in such cases. In the instant case, the Sessions Judge has

rightly observed that custody of the respondent is not needed and as

such, he cannot be denied the concession of bail. Even though, the

learned trial Magistrate has not supplied any reasons of granting bail

to the respondent/accused, yet the revisional court has after hearing the

petitioner, supplied the reasons for grant of bail, which are cogent and

well founded.

8. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order passed by the learned

revisional court does not call for any interference by this Court. The

present petition lacks merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

(SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE

Jammu 06.02.2023 Sahil Padha