Madhya Pradesh High Court
State Of M.P. vs Bardanilal Ahirwar on 21 April, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2006CRILJ4676, 2006 CRI. L. J. 4676, 2007 (2) AJHAR (NOC) 424 (MP), (2006) 3 MPHT 36, (2007) 1 EASTCRIC 280, 2006 CRILR(SC&MP) 502, (2006) 43 ALLINDCAS 733 (MP)
ORDER S.K. Kulshrestha, J.
1. Counsel heard on the question of cancellation of bail granted to the non-applicant by order dated 1-8-2005 of the learned Special Judge, Indore S.C. S.T. (Atrocities) Act cum Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Bail Application No. 2118/2005. The non-applicant is facing trial for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC pertaining to Crime No. 78/04 of PS, Rawji Bazar, Indore. It is alleged that an offence of cheating involving a sum of Rs. 7,64,000/-pertaining to the incumbency of the non-applicant as Chief Executive Officer of Jila Antya Vyavsayi Sahakari Vikas Samiti was committed.
2. Several attempts were made by the said non-applicant to seek enlargement on bail but in vain. It is alleged that as many as eight applications were made before the Sessions Court without success and the efforts made twice before this Court also failed. These facts are indisputable.
3. While considering the matter in relation to the bail application of a co-accused when it was brought to the notice of this Court that the non-applicant had already been enlarged on bail and on parity, the co-accused should also be so enlarged, the learned Judge, on going through the record, was shocked to find that the present non-applicant had obtained bail from the Sessions Court without disclosing that his applications had twice been rejected by the High Court. Being of the opinion that had this fact been disclosed that the application had been twice rejected by the High Court, the Additional Sessions Judge would not have been persuaded to grant bail, learned Judge took suo motu cognizance and registered the case for initiating proceedings for cancellation of bail granted by the Additional Sessions Judge. A notice was issued to the respondent in response whereof the respondent had appeared through his Counsel.
4. I may also point out that on account of the long illness of the learned Sr. Counsel who was engaged by the non-applicant when the case was adjourned to 3-3-2006, the respondent was directed to remain present on that date by order dated 17-2-2006. But the respondent did not remain present on two occasions and finding that the reason advanced for absence was not satisfactory, by order dated 3-3-2006, he was directed to surrender before the Trial Court by 6-3-2006 as he had apparently violated the conditions of bail. The appellant has though not surrendered by that date, he has later surrendered and is lodged in jail now.
5. Learned Counsel for the non-applicant submits that although it is true that the Counsel for the non-applicant had not mentioned the fact that his bail applications had twice been rejected by the High Court, the bail granted to the applicant cannot be rejected merely on that count. He has referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Kashmira Singh v. Duman Singh in support of his submission that omission to mention all facts is not always fatal and if the accused is not to be blamed, the bail cannot be cancelled. In the said case, the fact that the bail of the co-accused has been rejected twice was not disclosed and the bail granted was sought to be cancelled on that ground. The said fact was otherwise within the knowledge of the Court. The facts in the present case are materially different and distinguishable. In the present case, it was in the case of the non-applicant himself that the bail had been rejected twice and under the rules he was duty bound to disclose the rejection of his earlier applications. His application was not properly constituted. This apart, it cannot be denied that rejection by the High Court, not once but twice, of the bail application would have been a strong circumstance for the Sessions Court to scrutinize the application of the non-applicant more minutely and the greater likelihood was of the rejection of the application and it was for this reason, that the said important, relevant and material fact was suppressed. Learned Counsel though contends that the Sessions Court had the power to grant bail notwithstanding rejection by the High Court specially in the circumstances when co-accused had been released on bail, it is clear that in a case where the involvement of the non-applicant was direct and he was occupying pivotal position and there had been rejection by the Sessions Court itself eight times, the chances would have become more slender if the fact of the rejection by the High Court twice had been disclosed.
6. Reference has been made to the decision in Mohan Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh to the effect that reversal of the bail was not proper on the ground that it was not disclosed before the Sessions Court that applicant had simultaneously invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court. In case of concurrent jurisdiction, filing of simultaneous application is one thing but where the application itself stood rejected and the rules enjoin a party with the duty to disclose such a fact, non-disclosure of such a material fact assumes greater importance. Even in Vivek Kumar v. State of U.P. the facts were quite different. In the said case, though there was suppression of certain facts in the bail application, after a long incarceration the Court was persuaded to enlarge the person on bail. In the present case, the situation is different. It is not a case of unusual incarceration of the non-applicant.
7. The fact that the applicant was aware that his bail application was rejected by the Sessions Court eight times and the rejection by the High Court twice would have persuaded the Sessions Court to decline bail and the said material fact was meaningfully suppressed, I find that it would be in the interest of justice as also to curb such tendency of hoodwinking the Courts that the bail granted to the non-applicant should be cancelled. At the same time, since the Counsel contends that the applicant was in Jail and may be the person instructing the Counsel appearing for him did not properly instruct him, the applicant should not continue with the stigma of having suppressed material facts. Accordingly, while cancelling the bail granted by the Sessions Court, it is made clear that should the non-applicant Bardanilal Ahirwar make any such application in future, the Court concerned shall consider the said application without being influenced by the observations made herein.
8. This M.Cr.C. is, accordingly, disposed of.