Rajasthan High Court
Anil Kumar @ Lal Chand S/O Sh. ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 April, 2022
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 65/2021
Anil Kumar @ Lal Chand S/o Sh. Jagdish Prasad, R/o Opposite
Geeta Bhawan Outside Nehru Gate Beawar At Present R/o
Bhomiya Ji Ka Than Ps Beawar Sadar Dist. Ajmer
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Prem Chand S/o Sh. Rampal, R/o Vill. Rahman Kheda
Khatiyon Ki Dhani Tehsil Beawar Dist. Ajmer
3. Kapil S/o Prem Chand, R/o Vill. Rahman Kheda Khatiyon
Ki Dhani Tehsil Beawar Dist. Ajmer
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jai Prakash Gupta through VC
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sushil Pujari
For State : Mr. Sher Singh Mahala, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Order
25/04/2022
1. Complainant-Petitioner has filed this bail cancellation
application under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C.
2. F.I.R. No. 0124/2020 was registered at Police Station Beawar
Sadar, District Ajmer for offences under Sections 323, 341 read
with 34 of IPC.
3. It is contended by counsel for the complainant-petitioner
that initially the accused-respondents Prem Chand & Kapil had
filed bail application before the High Court which was dismissed by
this Court on 29.07.2020 and while dismissing the bail application
liberty was given to the petitioners to move fresh bail application
(2 of 4) [CRLBC-65/2021]
after recording of the statement of injured witnesses. It is also
also contended that thereafter, the second bail application was
filed by the accused-respondents which was dismissed by this
Court on 01.12.2020 mentioning therein that while rejecting the
first bail application, Court had given liberty to the petitioners to
move fresh application after recording of the statement of injured
witnesses and that there were no change in circumstance
necessitating entertaining the second bail application. It is further
contended that accused-respondents concealed the orders passed
by the High Court and moved bail application before the Trial
Court and Trial Court vide impugned order dated 15.03.2021 had
allowed the bail application. It is contended that statement of
injured witnesses have not been recorded so far and when liberty
was given to the accused-respondents to move fresh bail
application after recording of the statement of injured witnesses,
they by concealing the orders passed by the High Court
approached the trial Court and impugned order was passed in
their favour.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the accused-respondents has
vehemently opposed the bail cancellation application. It is
contended that Apex Court has held that after rejection of bail by
the High Court, Sessions Court will not be powerless to pass
appropriate orders with regard to renewed prayer for bail.
5. Counsel for accused-respondents has placed reliance on
Dalveer Singh Rana vs State of Rajasthan & Anr., Criminal
Appeal No.986/2018 decided by the Apex Court on 07.08.2018.
Reliance has also placed on Sanjay Chandra vs Central Bureau
of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40, Aslam Babalal Desai vs
(3 of 4) [CRLBC-65/2021]
State of Maharashtra, AIR 1993 SC 1 and Manish Pahadia vs
Smt. Sanju Bai & Anr., (2010) 1 WLC 670.
6. I have considered the contentions.
7. This Court deemed it appropriate to call for the record of the
trial Court to ascertain as to what was pleaded in the bail
application. From perusal of the bail, it is evident that in the note
appended to the application, it is simply mentioned that no bail
application is pending before the High Court. The applicants
therein i.e. present accused-respondents concealed the fact of
dismissal of first and second bail applications before the High
Court. It is evident that while rejecting the first bail application,
liberty was given to the accused-respondents to move a fresh bail
application after recording of the statements of injured witnesses
and second bail application was also rejected as pre-mature, for
the very reason that statements of injured witnesses was not
recorded on that date.
8. Had the fact been in the notice of the Sessions Court that the
bail applications were rejected on the ground that accused-
respondents had liberty to move fresh bail application after
recording of the statement of injured witnesses, the trial Court
would not have entertained the bail application. This is a clear
case where the accused-respondents have concealed the factum
of rejection of first and second bail applications by the High Court.
9. The contention of counsel for the accused-respondents that
there was virtual hearing and hence the fact of dismissal of bails
was not placed before the trial Court is baseless, because all the
orders passed by the Courts are being uploaded regularly and bail
applications were rejected in the presence of the counsel for the
accused-respondents. The judgment cited by the counsel for the
(4 of 4) [CRLBC-65/2021]
accused-respondents could not be applied to the facts of the
present case because in the present case, bail application was
moved before the trial Court by concealing the fact that bail
applications have been rejected by the High Court. It is also
contended by counsel for the accused-respondents that factum of
cancellation of bail was in the notice of complainant and that he
had not brought it to the notice of the trial Court. I do not find
any force in the said argument as when second bail application of
accused-respondents were rejected by this Court, complainant
was not party to it. The complainant was also not present when
the bail application was allowed by the trial Court.
10. In view of above, I deem it proper to allow the bail
cancellation application.
11. Accordingly, the application for cancellation of bail is allowed.
Bail granted to the accused-respondents by the trial Court vide
order dated 15.03.2021 is hereby, cancelled.
12. Trial Court is directed to take the accused-respondents in
custody.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J
HEENA/03
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
