Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ashok Singhal vs State Of Rajasthan on 4 September, 2018
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Habeas Corpus No. 137/2018
Ashok Singhal S/o Sh. Bheem Singh, Aged About 26 Years, B/C
Meghwal, R/o Ward No. 9, Jhansal, Tehsil Bhadra, District
Hanumangarh (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Special Judge (Prevention To Atrocity Of The
Schedule Caste Or Scheduled Tribe Cases),
Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Moti Singh, Adv.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Order 04/09/2018 It is pointed out that the High Court granted bail to accused- Bheem Singh vide order dated 13.08.2018 passed in S.B.Criminal Appeal No.867/2018 subject to accused furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court as also with the direction to comply with the order passed under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. It is contended that accused-Bheem Singh furnished his bail bonds which were duly accepted. However, the orders of release have not been issued by the Special Judge as the accused had not complied with (2 of 3) [HC-137/2018] the order passed under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. The order under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. was passed by the trial court on 28.08.2018, whereas, the bail bonds stood accepted on 23.08.2018. Thus, on the date the said order was passed, the order of 28.08.2018 was not in existence.
The argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that once an order has been passed granting bail to the accused and bail bonds have been accepted, continuation of the custody is nothing but illegal and therefore, the habeas corpus is maintainable in the facts of the present case.
Heard.
Admittedly, the accused had jumped bail and it was under
those conditions that this Court while granting bail on 13.08.2018 had also directed that the accused should comply with the order passed under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. We cannot rule out the possibility of the direction to comply with the order under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. having escaped the notice of learned Special Judge while accepting the bail bonds on 23.08.2018. The proceedings under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. are admittedly pending. In these circumstances, we do not deem it proper to strictly go by the provisions of the habeas corpus but taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it proper to direct the release of the accused-Bheem Singh (father of the petitioner) forthwith on the bail bonds already accepted by the trial court with a direction that the appellant shall comply with the provisions/order passed under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. within one week of his release.
(3 of 3) [HC-137/2018]
Disposed of accordingly.
At this stage, learned counsel submitted that he should be given right to challenge the order passed under Section 446 of Cr.P.C.. However, the said prayer is totally misconceived because the bail order was conditional to that extent.
NK/73 (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J (NIRMALJIT KAUR),J Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)