Rajasthan High Court

Narpal S/O Singaram vs State Of Rajasthan on 22 October, 2024

Author: Sameer Jain

Bench: Sameer Jain

[2024:RJ-JP:40994]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

         S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 595/2024

1.       Narpal S/o Singaram, Aged About 40 years
2.       Sarita W/o Narpal, Aged About 39 years
         Both Resident of Mukundpura, Police Station Mehada,
         District       Neemkathana,             Nyay        Kshetra      Jhunjhunu,
         Rajasthan.
                                                           .......Accused-Petitioners
                                        Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
                                                                     .......Respondent

2. Investigating Officer Shri Ashok Kumar, Police Station Mehada Through A.P.P. ........Applicant/ Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anoop Agarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP with Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Order

Reserved on 24/09/2024 Pronounced on 22/10/2024

1. The present petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

assailing the order dated 08.01.2024, passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 Khetri, Rajasthan in Criminal Misc.

Case No. 129/2023 whereby, the learned Trial Court has revoked

the bail bonds of the accused-petitioners (granted under Section

436 of Cr.P.C.) in F.I.R. no. 203/2023 registered at Police Station

Mehada, District Neemkathana, Nyay Kshetra, Jhunjhunu,

Rajasthan, for offences under Sections 323, 341 and 504 of I.P.C.

2. The instant petition is filed with the following prayers:

[2024:RJ-JP:40994] (2 of 7) [CRLMP-595/2024]

"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that your lordship may graciously be pleased to call for the entire record of the case and after examining the same allow the present criminal misc. petition and the impugned order dated 08.01.2024 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, District Jaipur, in Criminal Misc. Case No.129/2023 (Investigating officer Vs. Narpal and others) may kindly be quashed and set aside. Any other beneficial order or direction which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that in

a nut-shell the factual matrix of the instant matter is that after

culmination of the initial investigation the accused-petitioner was

charged with sections 341, 323, 504, 506/34 of I.P.C. Howsoever,

the accused-petitioners were enlarged on bail (filed under section

436 of Cr.P.C.) considering the simple nature of injuries inflicted.

Subsequently, the police file was sent to the Circle Inspector for

his opinion, who opined that an offence under section 308 of I.P.C.

is also made out.

4. In this backdrop, learned counsel had averred that the

Circle Officer sans considering the medical reports furnished by

the Medical Officer/ Expert Doctor intervened in the instant

timeline and added an offence under section 308 of I.P.C. against

the accused-petitioner, without tendering any reasonable

explanation. Subsequently, respondent no. 2 filed a bail

cancellation application under section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. (dated

14.12.2023). Resultant to which, turning a blind eye to the

medical report and the submissions made by the police officers at

the earlier stage (qua the fact that all the offences are bailable in

[2024:RJ-JP:40994] (3 of 7) [CRLMP-595/2024]

nature), the bail bonds of the petitioners were revoked vide the

impugned order (Annexure-4).

5. At this juncture, learned counsel had placed reliance

upon the order dated 12.02.2024 and had averred that the said

order categorically notes that the petitioner no. 2 i.e. Smt. Sarita

was arrested therefore, the instant petition was dismissed as

having become infructuous to the extent of the petitioner no. 2

and an immunity of no arrest to be carried out was granted qua

the petitioner no. 1. Though the petitioner no. 2 was subsequently

released on bail.

6. Considering the crucial factual matrix of the instant

matter vide orders dated 04.07.2024 and 13.08.2024 the

Investigating Officer and the concerned Superintendent of Police

were directed to mark presence in the Court. In compliance of the

directions of the Court, the officers have marked presence and

have tendered explanation qua the subsequent addition of offence

under section 308 of I.P.C. against the petitioners. Nonetheless,

this Court is not absolutely satisfied with the explanation so

tendered, as no bona fide and definitive rationale behind the said

action appears.

7. Ergo, considering the aforementioned facts and

circumstances of the instant matter, juxtaposing the averments

raised by the learned counsel for both the sides and the police

officers present in the Court, and scanning the record this Court is

of the following opinion:

7.1 That the instant dispute was inter-se between the

parties, wherein, cross-FIRs were lodged by the petitioners and

the then complainants.

[2024:RJ-JP:40994] (4 of 7) [CRLMP-595/2024]

7.2 That in the report undersigned by the medical officer, it

is categorically noted that the nature of injuries was simple.

7.3 That the Investigating Officer vide application dated

14.12.2023 urged to add an offence under Section 308 of I.P.C.

qua the petitioners. Howsoever, it is noted that the medical report

states the nature of injuries inflicted to be simple, and the said

letter was furnished neglecting the same, sans any substantial

cogitate. For the sake of convenience the relevant extract from

the letter dated 14.12.2023 (Annexure- R/1) is reproduced herein

below:

"mijksDr fo'k;kUrxZr ys[k gS fd izdj.k la[;k 203@2023

fnukad 16-10-23 /kkjk 341] 323] 504] 506 Hkknl Fkkuk esgkMk

dh i=koyh vki }kjk ckn vuqla/kku vkns"kkFkZ dk;kZy; gktk

ij izkIr gqbZ gSA izdj.k dh i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;k

rks et:c Jh yyhr iq= Jh jrhjke ds pksV izfrosnu u0

125 fnukad 12-10-23 ds eqrkfcd et:c ds flj esa pksV u0

01- 2x2cm o pksV u0 02- 5x2cm dh pksV vafdr gSA vr%

izdj.k esa /kkjk 308 Hkknl tksMh tkdj xgurk ls vuqla/kku

fd;k tkdj 07 fnol esa i=koyh vkns"kkFkZ bl dk;kZy; esa

izLrqr djsaA "

7.4 That during the course of interaction with the police

officers it was brought to the notice of the Court that the said

action of the Investigating Officer was underwritten by the Senior

Circle Officer. Nevertheless, it is pertinent to mention that no

reasonable explanation for the said action is tendered by either of

the officers.

[2024:RJ-JP:40994] (5 of 7) [CRLMP-595/2024]

7.5 That resultant to the aforementioned, the bail

cancellation application was preferred and the impugned order

was passed whereby, the bail granted to the petitioners was

cancelled.

8. In this regard this Court is of the view that "Bail is the

rule and jail is the exception" is a principle that's well-established

in judicial pronouncements and is in line with the provisions

enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This

principle means that liberty is the rule and deprivation is the

exception, and deprivation can only be made by a valid and

reasonable procedure established by law. Moreover, it is a settled

position of law that a bail can only be cancelled if there appear

any of the risks which include violation of the bail conditions; risk

of flight; public safety concerns; sound judicial discretion; abuse

or misuse of bail; interference with the witnesses; tampering of

evidences; creating nuisance or delaying justice.

9. Nevertheless, in the matter in hand no such

observation is spelled out by the learned Trial Court whilst passing

the impugned order. Withal, reliance can be placed upon the ratio

encapsulated in Jalaluddin Khan vs The Union Of India

reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1945 wherein, it was opined

that even if the allegations of the prosecution are of serious

nature, but the duty of the Courts is to consider the case for grant

of bail in accordance with the law. The relevant extract from the

said ratio is reproduced herein below:

"21. Before we part with the Judgment, we must mention here that the Special Court and the High Court did not consider the material in the charge sheet objectively. Perhaps the focus was more on the activities of PFI, and therefore, the

[2024:RJ-JP:40994] (6 of 7) [CRLMP-595/2024]

Appellant's case could not be properly appreciated. When a case is made out for a grant of bail, the Courts should not have any hesitation in granting bail. The allegations of the prosecution may be very serious. But, the duty of the Courts is to consider the case for grant of bail in accordance with the law. "Bail is the Rule and jail is an exception" is a settled law. Even in a case like the present case where there are stringent conditions for the grant of bail in the relevant statutes, the same Rule holds good with only modification that the bail can be granted if the conditions in the statute are satisfied. The Rule also means that once a case is made out for the grant of bail, the Court cannot decline to grant bail. If the Courts start denying bail in deserving cases, it will be a violation of the rights guaranteed Under Article 21 of our Constitution."

10. In précis of the aforementioned, it can be noted that

the police authorities without having any reasonable justification

added a surplus provision for an offence, overlooking the medical

report. Resultant to the said arbitrary action of the police

authorities' impugned order dated 08.01.2024 was passed sans

stating any reasons for cancellation of the bail granted to the

petitioners.

11. In light of the aforementioned, and specifically taking

not of the fact that no reasonable rationale is tendered by the

police authorities in the said application/letter nor before the

Court, it is deemed apposite that the impugned order dated

08.01.2024 be set aside, along with all its consequential