Allahabad High Court
Chinta Mani Tripathi vs State Of U.P. on 14 December, 1990
Equivalent citations: 1991CRILJ1662
Author: G.P. Mathur
Bench: G.P. Mathur
ORDER G.P. Mathur, J.
1. One Shiva Devi, daughter of Ram Charan, gave a written application to the S.S.P., Allahabad, alleging that at about 6 p.m. on 20-5-1987 the applicant Chinta Mani Tripathi placed a gun on her chest and threatened to shoot her and thereafter forcibly committed rape on her. Some other girls who were accompanying the informant ran away from the spot after the applicant had threatened to shoot the informant. These girls informed the mother of the informant at her house who proposed for the spot. On the way applicant Chintamani Tripathi met her and also assaulted her. It was further alleged that after the informent returned to her house the applicant Chintamani used to sit at her door with a gun and did not permit her nor any member of her family to go out and that at every time someone from the side of the applicant blocked the way. On 4-6-1987 the informant's father sent an information to the District Magistrate and the S.S.P. Allahabad but no steps were taken. The informant was a poor girl belonging to Mallah caste and was aged about 16 years. She had been married but Gauna ceremony had not been performed.
2. It appears from the record of the case that the S.S.P. Allahabad passed on order on 8-6-87 directing C. O. Meja to get the case registered and take necessary action. C. O. Meja then passed an order on 10-6-87 directing S.O. of P.S. Meja to register the case and take necessary steps. Thereafter the case was registered at P. S. Meja on 18-6-87 as Crime No. 97 of 1987 Under Section 376, IPC against the applicant Chinta Mani Tripathi and investigation was entrusted to Dalip Singh, S.I.
3. It appears from the record that the applioation moved by the applicant for surrender before J.M. I Allahabad was rejected as he did not appear on the date fixed. He later on moved a petition Under Section 482, Cr. P.C. in the High Court on the allegation that he was ill and was admitted in Swamp Rani Nehru Hospital, Allahabad. The High Court gave a direction that the applicant be taken into custody in the hospital in Crime No. 97 of 1987 Under Section 376, IPC. The applicant moved an application for bail which was allowed by the Incharge Sessions Judge, Allahabad; on 13-8-1987. The complainant then moved an application for cancellation of bail granted to the applicant on 3-9-1987 which was allowed and the bail granted to the applicant was cancelled on 5-2-1988. The applicant did not surrender and filed Crl. Misc. Application No. 1251 of 1988 in this Court Under Section 482, Cr. P.C. It was admitted on 9-2-1988 and the operation of the order dated 5-2-1988 passed by the learned Sessions Judge was stayed. On 7-3-1990 the petition was finally disposed of with the direction that the bail cancellation application should be reheard by the learned Sessions Judge and be decided in accordance with law. The bail cancellation application was heard again and Shri B. N. B. Asthana, Sessions Judge, Allahabad, by his order dated 20-6-1990 cancelled the bail granted to the applicant in Crime No. 97 of 1987. The applicant did not surrender and he moved Misc. Application No. 7109 of 1990 Under Section 482, Cr. P.C. in this court challenging the order dated 20-6-1990 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Allahabad. On 28-6-1990 this Court issued notice to the opposite parties to file counter-affidavit and stayed the arrest of the applicant till 9-8-1990. This stay order was extended from time to time till 30-11-1990. Thereafter the stay order was not extended.
4. The applicant also gave notice of a bail application to the Government Advocate of the High Court vide notice No. 5263 of 25-6-1990. However, the bail application was not presented in the court after the expiry of the period of notice and it was filed for the first time before the Joint Registrar, as required by the rules, on 3-12-1990. The bail application came up for consideration before Hon'ble B. P. Singh, J. On 4-1.2-1990 when His Lordship directed that the matter be placed before some other Hon'ble Judge. After nomination by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice the bail application was come up for hearing before me.
5. Sri A. K. Shukla, learned counsel for the complainant has contended that although the bail of the applicant had been cancelled on 20-6-1990 but he did not surrender. The notice of the present bail application was given on 25-6-1990 when the applicant had not surrendered and he was not in custody. Learned counsel has thus contended that the application for bail was liable to be rejected on this ground alone. Shri Viresh Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, has contended that the applicant surrendered on 4-12-1990 and he has filed a questionnaire showing that the applicant did surrender on the said date. He has contended that on the date when the bail application came up before Hon'ble B. P. Singh, J. on 4-12-1990 the applicant had surrendered and was in custody.
6. In order to appreciate the rival contentions it will be useful to notice that relevant provisions of the Rules of Court. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 18 of Chapter XVIII of the Rules of Court reads as follows:--
"No application for bail shall be entertained unless accompanied by a copy of judgment or order appealed against or sought to be revised and a copy of the order passed by the Sessions Judge on the bail application for the applicant and unless the accused has surrendered except where he has been released on bail after conviction Under Section 389(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973."
The requirement of the rule, therefore, is that before the bail application is entertained the accused should have surrendered. The questions what is the meaning of the word "entertained" in Sub-rule (1). Does it mean that a bail application is entertained on the date when the notice of the same is given to the Government Advocate or on the date when it comes up for hearing before the Court? The word "entertained" has been used in other statutes as well where it has came up for interpretation. In Dhoom Chand v. Chaman Lal (AIR 1962 All 543) : (1962 All LJ 729) a Division Bench of this court has held that the word "entertain" in its application to Clause (b) to proviso to Order 21, Rule 90, CPC, bears the meaning of admitting to consideration. In Kundan Lal v. Jagan Nath (AIR 1962 All 547) : (1962 All LJ 574) it was held as follows (at page All 548; AIR 1962:--
"The use of the word "entertain" in the proviso (All) to Order 21, Rule 90 denotes a point of time at which an application to set aside the sale is heard by the court. The expression "entertain" does not mean the same thing as the filing of the application or admission of the application by the Court. A court hearing an application under Order 21, Rule 90 can only be said to entertain the application when it is actually disposing of the application on merits and the mere filing of the application by the judgment-debtor would not be its entertainment by court."
7. The word "entertain" again came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in M/s Lakshmiratan Engineering works Ltd. v. Asst. Commissioner, Sales Tax (AIR 1968 SC 488) in reference to Section 9 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 9 read as follows :--
"Provided that no appeal against an assessment shall be entertained unless it is accompanied by satisfactory proof of the payment of the amount of tax admitted by the appellant to be due, or of such instalments thereof as may have become payable."
In this case the appellants filed an appeal on May 16, 1966, against the order of assessment and demand notice which was served upon them on April 16, 1966, and the appeal was thus filed within time. However, the appellants had deposited the admitted tax on April 26, 1966, but they did not file any proof of such deposit. The certificate of having deposited the tax was filed by the appellants on January 24, 1967. The Asstt. Commissioner rejected the appeal on the ground that the appellants had not complied with the requirements of Section 9 as they did not file the proof of having deposited the tax along with the memo of appeal. In para 7 of the report of the Supreme Court observed as follows (at page SC 491; AIR 1968:
"To begin with it must be noticed that the proviso merely requires that the appeal shall not be entertained unless it is accompanied by satisfactory proof of the payment of the amount of tax admitted by the appellant to be due. A question thus arises that is the meaning of the word 'entertained' in this context? Does it mean that no appeal shall be received or filed or does it mean that no appeal shall be admitted or heard and disposed of unless satisfactory proof is available? The dictionary meaning of the word 'entertain' was brought to our notice by the parties, and both sides agreed that it means either "to deal with or admit to consideration". We are also of the same opinion. The question, therefore, is at what stage can the appeal be said to be entertained for the purpose of the application of the proviso? It is 'entertained' when it is filed or is it 'entertained' when it is admitted and the date is fixed for hearing or is it finally 'entertained' when it is heard and disposed of?"
After considering the various decisions of the Allahabad High Court the Supreme Court observed as follows in para 10 of the report (at page SC 492; AIR 1968 :
"In our opinion these cases have taken a correct view of the word 'entertain' which according to dictionary also means 'admit to consideration'. It would therefore appear that the direction to the court in the proviso to Section 9 is that the court shall not proceed to admit to consideration an appeal which is not accompanied by satisfactory proof of the payment of the admitted tax. This will be when the case is taken up by the court for the first time."
In Sub-rule (1) of Rule 18 of Chapter XVIII the words used are not that the application for bail shall be 'filed' or "received" but the words are "shall be entertained". Therefore, the proper interpretation of Sub-rule (1) would be that no application for bail shall be "admitted for consideration" unless the accused had surrendered. This will be at the time when the bail application is taken up for consideration by the court for the first time. In the present case the applicant had surrendered on 4-12-1990 when the bail application came up for consideration. As such the present bail application is maintainable and cannot be rejected on the ground that the notice of the application for bail was given to the Government Advocate at a time when the accused had not surrendered.
8. It may be pointed out that the contingency that an accused may give notice to the Government Advocate before surrendering can arise only in a case where his bail has been cancelled by the learned Sessions Judge. In a case where the accused applies for bail in the High Court after his bail application has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, he would be in custody as he would have moved the bail application before the Sessions Judge only after he had surrendered or had been taken into custody. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 18 provides that in every application for bail in a case which is under investigation or which is pending in a lower court it shall be stated whether any application for bail had or had not been previously made before the magistrate or the Sessions Judge concerned and the result of such application if any. Similarly Sub-rule (1) requires that a copy of the order passed by the Sessions Judge on the bail application shall be filed along with the bail application moved in this court. It is therefore, obvious that the accused would be in custody at the time when he gives notice of the bail application to the Government Advocate when he appeals for bail in the High Court after rejection of his bail application by the Sessions Judge.
9. Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that in view of Clause (a) of Sub-rule (3) and Clause (b) of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 18 of Chapter XVIII of the Rules of court the present bail application is liable to be rejected. Clause (a) of Sub-rule (3) provides that 'save in exceptional circumstances' no order granting bail shall be made on an application unless notice thereof has been given to the Government Advocate and not less than ten days have elapsed between the giving of such notice and the hearing of such application. Clause (b) of Sub-rule (4) proviso that every application for bail shall state the date of the applicant's arrest. In the present case, in the original bail application notice whereof was given to the Government Advocate on 25-6-1990, the provision of Clause (b) of Sub-rule (4) were not complied with in as much as the date of the applicant's arrest was not mentioned. Since the applicant had not surrendered, in the bail application this fact was deliberately omitted to be mentioned. The applicants has filed a supplementary affidavit on 10-12-1990 wherein it is mentioned that he surrendered before the A.C.J.M. Allahabad on 4-12-1990 at 11 a.m. Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that as the supplementary affidavit was filed on 10-12-1990 the period of ten days have not elapsed and therefore the bail application should not heard. Learned counsel for the applicant has on the other hand contended that the provisions of Sub-rule (3) and Sub-rule (4) are not mandatory but are merely directory in nature.
10. So far as Sub-rule (3) is concerned it starts with the words "Save in exceptional circumstances..." It is therefore obvious that in 'exceptional circumstances' the bail application could be heard even though the period of ten days has not elapsed between the giving of the notice of the bail application to the Government Advocate and its hearing by the court. The court may in an appropriate case hear the bail application even before the expiry of the prescribed period of ten days. The position in Sub-rule (4) is however different. Sub-Rule (4) starts with the words "Every application for bail shall show...... It shall also state the following for particulars, namely. The date of the applicant's arrest. "Therefore, the word 'shall' has been used twice in Sub-rule (4). The use of the word 'shall' raises a presumption that a particular provision is imperative as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Baburam (AIR 1961 SC 751) and State of U.P. v. Man Bodhan Lal (AIR 1957 SC 912). It is, therefore, mandatory that the bail application must mention the date of the arrest of the applicant. In case the bail application does not disclose that the applicant is in custody the same day be rejected on this ground.
11. In the present case in the bail application, notice of which was given on 28-6-1990, the date of arrest of the applicant was not mentioned. This was done by means of an affidavit filed on 10-12-1990. The question is whether the bail application should be rejected on this ground alone. In my opinion there are some exceptional circumstances due to which it will not be proper to reject the bail application on account of non-compliance of Clause (b) of Sub-rule (4). After the bail of the applicant was cancelled on 20-6-1990 he filed a petition Under Section 482, Cr. P.C. being Clause Misc. Application No. 7109 of 1990 in the High Court wherein the operation of the order dated 20-6-1990 was stayed on 28-6-1990. This stay order remained operative till 30-1.1-1990. It appears from the record that the petition Under Section 482, Cr. P.C. was heard on several dates in the month of November, 1990. In view of this special feature of the case I am of opinion that it will not be proper to reject the bail application only on the ground that the date of the applicant's arrest was not mentioned therein. The fact remains that subsequently the applicant has filed a supplementary affidavit and has complied with the requirements of Clause (b) of Sub-rule (4) of the Rules of court. Although I am of opinion that the provisions of Clause (b) of Sub-rule (4) are mandatory and in case of non-compliance thereof the bail application will be liable for rejection but in an exceptional case the court may entertain a bail application where the date of arrest of the applicant has not been mentioned. However, there must be material on record to show that at the time when the application is taken into consideration the accused was in custody.
12. The applicant was initially granted bail by the Incharge Sessions Judge, Allahabad, and his bail has been subsequently cancelled. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the cancellation of the bail application was wholly unwarranted on the facts and circumstances of the present case. The consideration for cancellation of bail are entirely different from the considerations which weigh with the court at the time of the grant of bail. In Delhi Administration v. Sanjay Gandhi (AIR 1978 SC 961): (1978 Cri LJ 952) it was observed as follows (at page SC 965; AIR 1978 :--
"Rejection of bail when bail is applied for is one thing, cancellation of bail already granted is quite another. It is easier to reject a bail application in a non-bailable case than to cancel a bail granted in such a case. Cancellation of bail necessarily involves the review of a decision already made and can by and large be permitted only if, by reason of supervening circumstances, it would be no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his, freedom during the trial."
Similarly in Bhagirathsinh Judeja v. State of Gujarat (1984 Cri LJ 160) : (AIR 1984 SC 372) the Supreme Court has held as follows (at page 161; Cri LJ 1984:--
"Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order seeking cancellation of the bail. It is now well settled by a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court that the power to grant bail is not to be exercised as if the punishment before trial is being imposed. The only material considerations in such a situation are whether the accused would be readily available for his trial and whether he is likely to abuse the discretion granted in his favour by tampering with evidence."
The facts of the present case show that although the incident is alleged to have taken place on 20-5-1987, a written report to S.S.P. was made after more than a fortnight on which an order was passed by the S.S.P. on 8-6-1987. The precise date on which the complaint was made is not known. The medical examination of the victim Shiva Devi was conducted on 30-6-1987, forty days after the occurrence. The doctor opined that there was no evidence of rape. Since the medical examination was done after a very long delay the medical examination report is of no value. No inference either in favour of the prosecution or in favour of defence can be drawn on its basis. The reasons for making a complaint to S.S.P. after inordinate delay, as mentioned in the first information report, is that the applicant used to sit with a gun at the house of the informant and did not permit anybody to go out. It is also alleged that someone or the other from the side of the applicant used to block the way due to which nobody could go to lodge the FIR. Whether the explanation given by the informant for making the complaint after a fortnight is convincing or not can only be considered after evidence has been addused in the trial, but the fact remains that the FIR was lodged after a fortnight of the alleged commission of the crime. It is also averred in para 6 of the affidavit that the applicant is aged about 57 years. He has got his wife, six children including two married daughters and several grand children. Prima facie on these facts the applicant is entitled to bail.
13. The learned Sessions Judge has cancelled the bail of the applicant on the ground that the accused has tried to terrorised and pressurise the informant in order to prevent the witnesses from giving evidence against him and that there is a reasonable apprehension that he will interfere with the course of justice if he was allowed to remain on bail. In support of the bail cancellation application Ram Charan, father of the victim Shiva Devi, had filed an affidavit stating that after the applicant had been released on bail he was continuously harrassing and torturing the witnesses and other family members of the complainant. It was also brought on record on behalf of the complainant that one Ram Kishan had lodged a FIR Under Section 324, IPC against the applicant and two others on 11-10-1987. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that Ram Kishan is not an eyewitness in the present case. He has also submitted that although the applicant was released on bail more than three years back on 13-8-1987 but there is nothing on record to show that he had acted in any manner so as to tamper with the prosecution witnesses. He further submitted that the case Under Section 376, IPC has not yet been committed to the court of Sessions.
14. I have considered the rival contentions advanced by the parties. The record of the present bail application does not show that Ram Kishan, who lodged the FIR against the applicant on 11-10-1987 is in any way connected with the present case under Section 376, IPC. In the first information report his name is not mentioned as an eye-witness of the incident. The record does not show that he is in any way connected with any of the eye witnesses of the present incident. Apart from the FIR lodged by Ram Kishan no other FIR was lodged against the applicant during this period of three years. After October, 1987, no objectionable act is attributed to the applicant. It is, therefore, clear that the applicant has not misused the privilege of bail granted to him during this period.'
15. Another aspect which has to be considered is that the case has not yet been committed to the court of Sessions although nearly three and a half years have elapsed. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the victim cannot be held responsible I for the delay in the commitment of the case. Nevertheless the fact remains that the case has not yet been committed to the court of Sessions and there is no possibility of the Sessions trial concluding in the near future. In case the applicant is not granted bail he will have to remain in jail for an indefinitely long period.
16. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case I am of opinion that the applicant is entitled to bail. Let applicant Chinta Mani Tripathi alias Chhotey Lal be released on bail in Crime No. 97 of 1987 Under Section 376, IPC P. S. Meja, Allahabad, on furnishing two sureties and a personal bond to the satisfaction of CJM, Allahabad.