Jharkhand High Court
Md. Arif Ansari @ Md. Arif vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 May, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 946 of 2022
Md. Arif Ansari @ Md. Arif ..... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. ..... ... Opposite Party
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Chudhary, Advocate
: Mr. Rohit Agrawal, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P.
------
02/ 05.05.2022 This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated
03.02.2020, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella
(Kharsawan), in connection with Seraikella P.S. Case No. 126 of 2019
corresponding to G.R. No. 125 of 2020, whereby the learned court has
been pleased to cancel the bail, granted to the petitioner earlier and also
for quashing of the order dated 21.02.2022, passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Seraikella, in Cr. Rev. No. 02 of 2020, whereby the learned
Sessions Judge has also been pleased to dismiss the revision application
and confirming the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Seraikella.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
earlier on 29.01.2020, chargesheet has been submitted under Sections 457,
380, 411, 413 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code and the learned court has
taken the cognizance against those Sections by order dated 03.02.2020 and
by the said impugned order, the bail bond of the petitioner was cancelled
and non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued on the ground that
earlier the bail was granted under the meager Sections and later on
chargesheet has been submitted under the graver Sections. He further
submits that this order was challenged before the learned Sessions Judge,
Seraikella, in Cr. Rev. No. 02 of 2020, however, the same was also
dismissed and the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Seraikella has been affirmed by the learned appellate court.
The Trial court has relied in the case of Pradeep Ram Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Anr., in Criminal Appeal No. 816-817 of
2019 and relying on this judgment, the learned court has cancelled the bail
of the petitioner.
3. Looking into the impugned order passed by the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, it transpires that observation in the case of Pradeep
Ram to the effect that in case of addition of graver Sections, it may not be
necessary to cancel the bail, granted earlier has been noted. In the case is
hand, no where it is alleged that the petitioner is misusing the privilege of
bail granted to him or evading his arrest and the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to cooperate in the
trial.
4. Reference may be made to the case of Dolat Ram & Ors.
Versus State of Haryana, reported in (1995) 1 SCC 349, wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in para-4 held as follows:-
"4. Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the
initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted,
have to be considered and dealt with on different
basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances
are necessary for an order directing the cancellation
of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the
grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative
and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to
interfere with the due course of administration of
Justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course
of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the
accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court,
on the basis of material placed on the record of
the possibility of the accused absconding is yet
another reason justifying the cancellation of bail.
However, bail once granted should not be cancelled
in a mechanical manner without considering whether
any supervening circumstances have rendered it no
longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused
to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of
bail during the trial. These principles, it appears,
were lost sight of by the High Court when it decided
to cancel the bail, already granted. The High Court it
appears to us overlooked the distinction of the factors
relevant for rejecting bail in a nonbailable case in the
first instance and the cancellation of bail already
granted."
5. It is well settled proposition of law that once bail granted
should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering
whether any supervening circumstances have occurred.
6. In view of the above and in the interest of justice, it would be
suffice that the petitioner is directed to appear in the concerned Court on
the date fixed by this Court.
7. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to appear before the
concerned court on or before 23.05.2022 and if he appears on that date,
the petitioner shall be allowed to remain on the same bail bond, which has
been earlier executed. It is made clear that on failure of appearance by the
petitioner, the Court below shall take all coercive action against the
petitioner.
8. With the above direction, this criminal miscellaneous petition
stands disposed of.
9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court
concerned through FAX at the cost of the petitioner.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
