Nandlal Acharya S/O Ganpat Ram ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 2574 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

     S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 85/2020

Nandlal Acharya S/o Ganpat Ram Acharya, R/o Village Chirana,
P.S. Udaipurwati, Dist. Jhunjhunu
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.     State of Rajasthan through P.P.
2.     Suman Devi W/o Bhola Ram, R/o Chaingarh Tan
       Mohanwadi Tehsil Nawalgalrh Dist. Jhunjhunu
       (At Present R/o Near RTO Office, Radha Kishanpura, Sikar
       Tehsil And Dist. Sikar)
                                                                ----Respondents

Connected With S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 86/2020 Nandlal Acharya S/o Ganpat Ram Acharya, R/o Village Chirana P.S. Udaipurwati Dist. Jhunjhunu

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan through PP

2. Bhola Ram S/o Bhagu Ram, R/o Chaingarh Tan Mohanwadi Tehsil Nawalgarh Dist. Jhunjhunu (At Present R/o Near RTO Office Radha Kishanpura Sikar Tehsil And Dist. Sikar)

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anoop Dhand through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Ola, PP For Complainant(s) : Mr. Vijay Poonia Mr. Balmukund Dhakad through VC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA Order

05/07/2021

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner appearing through

video conferencing and learned Public Prosecutor and learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant, present-in-

person. Perused the material available on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that no opportunity

was given to the complainant at the time of granting anticipatory

(2 of 4) [CRLBC-85/2020]

bail by learned trial Court. He further stated that if an opportunity

was granted to the complainant, the situation would have

different; he can place factual situation before learned trial Court

and in that eventuality, the interim order would not have been

passed by learned trial Court. In support of his contentions,

learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following

judgments as under:

1. Brij Nandan Jaiswal V/s Munna @ Munna Jaiswal and

Anr. reported in (2009) 1 SCC 678.

2. J.K. International V/s State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi &

Ors. reported in AIR 2001 SC 1142.

3. Kunhiraman V/s State of Kerala reported in ILR

2005(2) Kerala 139.

He further stated that on the ratio laid down in above cases,

impugned order passed by learned trial Court in a bail be

cancelled.

Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the respondent No.2 stated that there is no statutory

requirement that opportunity of hearing shall be given to the

complainant in each and every case and without statutory

requirement opportunity for hearing cannot be claimed as a

matter of right, this aspect was considered by learned trial Court.

This matter is related to offences punishable under Sections 420

and 426 of the Indian Penal Code and benefit of anticipatory bail

was granted on different ground, that no custodial interrogation is

required in this case and the anticipatory bail cannot be granted in

a mechanical manner. Learned counsel further stated that it was

not argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned

order was not validly passed by the learned trial Court or the

(3 of 4) [CRLBC-85/2020]

accused-petitioner misused the liberty given by learned trial Court

by relying upon following two judgments :-

1. Myakala Dharmarajam & Ors. etc. V/s The State of

Telangana & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No.1974-1975 of

2019, decided on 07.01.2003).

2. Dolat Ram & Ors. V/s State of Haryana reported in 1995

SCC (1) 349.

In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that on

Para 4 of page No.4 of the petition, it is clearly mentioned that

after granting anticipatory bail the accused-respondent starting

pursuing the complainant to withdraw the present case.

Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances,

particularly the fact that anticipatory bail was granted by learned

trial Court on the ground that no custodial interrogation is

required in this case, so far as misuse of liberty by the petitioner

is concerned, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

complainant stated that no separate complaint has been filed in

this regard; he also stated that charge-sheet has been filed after

the interim order and as per his knowledge, witnesses have been

called for.

I fully agree to the ratio decided by Hon'ble the Supreme

Court in the case of Brij Nandan Jaiswal V/s Munna @ Munna

Jaiswal and Anr. (supra) whereby it was held that, "the

complainant can always question the order granting bail if the said

order is not validly passed". In case of J.K. International

(supra), this matter was pertinent for quashing of criminal

proceeding, therefore, it was held that before passing any order,

complainant be heard. In case of Kunhiraman (supra), the Apex

Court also held that although there is no provision of giving

(4 of 4) [CRLBC-85/2020]

reasonable opportunity of being heard to the complainant but, if

the Court finds it a fit case then the Court can hear the

complainant before passing any order.

Learned counsel appearing for the accused relied upon the

judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in the case of

Myakala Dharmarajam & Ors. etc. (supra) and Dolat Ram &

Ors. (supra) where it was held that anticipatory bail granted to

the accused cannot be cancelled mechanically, in the above,

without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the

case, I do not find it to be a fit case for interference in the order

passed by the learned trial Court.

Accordingly, the applications preferred by the petitioner are

dismissed.

(DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J

3-4/-RASHI

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)