Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Nandlal vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 3 February, 2011
S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail (Can.) Appl.No.2110/2010 Nand Lal Vs. The State of Raj. Dated : 03.02.2011 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. Ved Pal Shastri, for the petitioner.
Mr. Amit Punia, PP for the State.
Mr.Madhav Mitra, for the accused-respondent.
*** This order governs the disposal of an application filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner-Nand Lal seeking cancellation of bail order dated 17th February, 2010 whereby the learned Sessions Judge granted Pre-arrest bail to the accused Murlidhar Yadav.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material available on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed this petition seeking cancellation of pre-arrest bail primarily on the ground that the accused Murlidhar Yadav, soon after seeking bail, started threatening him and pressurized him to take the case back. Learned counsel further submitted that he was unaware of the stage of investigation, but the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer while granting Pre-arrest bail virtually adjudicated the case itself stating that it was a case of civil nature. The accused respondent No.2 in association with other co-accused persons extorted -2- 13-14 lacs rupees from the driver of Truck bearing registration No.14-2B-4187, hence, pre-arrest bail granted to the accused respondent No.2 deserves to be cancelled.
4. E converso, learned counsel for respondent No.2 as also learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State have vehemently opposed the petition and contended that the police, after completion of investigation, had filed the charge-sheet on 14th October, 2010 and the accused respondent had been granted regular bail. Thus, in view of this legal position, the pre-arrest bail order has automatically become meaningless. He further contended that the petitioner is neither the complainant nor the victim of offence nor the petition has been filed by the State. Hence, in view of the judgment rendered by this court in the case of Alimuddin Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. reported in WLC (Raj.) 2009(5), 278 this petition is not maintainable. Hence, the petition on this count also deserves to be dismissed.
5. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and carefully scanned the relevant material emerging on record, it is noticed that the petitioner Nand Lal is neither the complainant of the case nor the victim of the offence.
-3-He is stated to be the owner of the truck bearing registration No.14-2B-4187. This Court in the case of Alimuddin Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. (Supra), held that:
Thus, from the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court and various Hon'ble High Courts, it is now very well settled that the petitioner or the complainant has no locus-standi to file the application for the cancellation of the bail, as it is Public Prosecutor only who has been conferred with the powers under Section 301(2) and Section 24 of the Cr.P.C. to prosecute a case on behalf of the state and only in exceptional cases a private advocate can be permitted to assist a Public Prosecutor subject to the limitation under Section 301(2) of Cr.P.C. In the present application, the petitioner-complainant has made the State Government a party to the case which leaves an impression that the state is also behaving anti to the complainant. Be that as it may, the complainant has no locus standi to file the application for the cancellation of the bail nor he is entitled to appear independently before the court where the State Government is a party. Thus, from this angle too, the application of the petitioner is found to be against the provisions of law and the same deserves to be dismissed.-4-
6. Besides above, it is pertinent to record that the parameters with regard to admitting to the accused are altogether distinct from the parameters with regard to cancellation of bail. This Court placing reliance on the judgment of Dolatram and others Vs. State of Haryana [1995(1) Supreme Court Cases, 349, in the said case (supra) observed:
that rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly(illustrative and not exhaustive) are interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the bail.-5-
7. Nowt has been brought to our notice from which any inference may possibly be drawn that the respondent has in any manner, whatsoever, abused the concession of bail during intervening period. I do not find any ground to cancel the bail already granted to the respondent.
8. For these reasons, the petition filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of bail being bereft of merits and devoid of substance stands dismissed.
(MAHESH BHAGWATI),J.
pcg