Dina Nath Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand Through ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2344 Jhar

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                        Cr.M.P. No. 1876 of 2023
         Dina Nath Singh                  .... .. ... Petitioner(s)
                        Versus
         The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance .. ... ...Opp. Party(s)
                        ...........

CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY .........

         For the Petitioner(s) :    Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
                                    Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate
         For the Vigilance :        Ms. Nehala Sharmin, APP
                        ......
03/ 18.07.2023. Heard the parties.

2. The surviving defect(s) as pointed out by the office is hereby ignored for the present.

3. The instant Cr. M. P. has been filed for quashing of the order dated 16.09.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, ACB at Chaibasa in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No.09 of 2015 corresponding to Vigilance Case No.64 of 2017 whereby and whereunder learned Trial court has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner for acceptance of the appearance of the petitioner through his counsel.

4. Petitioner was granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 09.04.2013 passed in ABA No.2411 of 2012 in connection with Manoharpur P.S. Case No.48 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. No.308 of 2011 registered under Sections 406, 409, 419, 420, 120(B) IPC. Later offences under PC Act was added and the case was transferred to the Vigilance Police/ Bureau and it was registered as Vigilance P.S. Case No.09 of 2015 corresponding to Vigilance Case No.64 of 2017. In this case, investigation was pending awaiting FF and since the year 2013, the accused had not appeared before the court in-person.

5. Therefore, warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner and the petition for recall filed on his behalf was rejected. Hence this petition.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner had been granted anticipatory bail in ABA No.2411 of 2012 when the case was registered for the offence under the provisions of Indian Penal Code and later on when the case was registered under the P.C. Act and Vigilance Case was registered, he preferred anticipatory bail before this Court in A.B.A. No.8088 of 2019 and other analogous cases and the same were disposed of with an observation that petitioner was already granted anticipatory bail which had not been cancelled, as such, the anticipatory bail applications were disposed of, as not maintainable in view of the ratio decided in the judgment reported in 2019 SCC Online (825).

7. It is submitted that there was no change of circumstance which warranted the Court to issue NBW against the petitioner without cancelling the earlier bail granted to the petitioner. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment passed in Cr. M. P. No.4488 of 2022 passed by this Court, wherein the petitioner was permitted to continue on the earlier bail bond.

8. Learned SPP for the Vigilance has opposed the prayer. It is submitted that investigation is still pending and the charge-sheet has not been filed. Therefore, the instant petition is premature one.

9. From the impugned order it appears that case was pending awaiting FF and the petition for bail was rejected for the reason that petitioner had not been granted bail. In the impugned order it has been noted that the petitioner was earlier enlarged on bail vide ABA No. 2411/2012 dated 9.4.2013. Thereafter the case was transferred to the Special Court (vigilance) wherein the petitioner did not appear. From the order it appears that the earlier bail has not been cancelled nor the bail bond forfeited. Mere transfer of a case to the Special Court for enquiry or trial for a graver offence, will not amount to cancellation of the earlier bail. Such an eventuality can arise when the petitioner does not cooperate in the investigation and a specific prayer has been made by the investigating agency for cancellation of bail. When there were no such grounds and the investigation was still pending, the notation for issuing non- bailable warrant against the petitioner.

Under the circumstance the impugned order is not sustainable and is accordingly set aside.

Criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.

Let a copy of this order be communicated through FAX to the concerned Trial Court at the cost of the petitioner.

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sandeep/

Uploaded.