Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Yatish Kumar Goel vs State Of Haryana on 26 April, 2017
Bench: A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan
1
ITEM NO.13 COURT NO.7 SECTION IIB
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 2046/2017
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16/09/2016
in CRMM No. 13702/2016 passed by the High Court Of Punjab & Haryana
At Chandigarh)
YATISH KUMAR GOEL Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. Respondent(s)
(WITH APPLN. (S) FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/COPY AS WELL AS PLAIN
COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND PERMISSION TO FILE SLP WITHOUT
C/COPY AS WELL AS PLAIN COPY OF IMPUGNED ORDER AND INTERIM RELIEF
AND OFFICE REPORT)
Date : 26/04/2017 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ratnakar Dash, Sr. Adv.
Mr. F. I. Choudhury,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, AAG
Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Signature Not Verified
The petitioner herein was granted bail by the High Court vide Digitally signed by ASHWANI KUMAR Date: 2017.04.27 order dated 04.08.2015 which was subject to the condition that the 10:55:53 IST Reason:
petitioner to appear before the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate 2 on 13.08.2015 or any other date convenient to the Court for giving specimen signatures and hand-writing running into two pages for comparison thereof with the questioned signatures and on failure to comply with it, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move the High Court for cancellation of bail. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had appeared before the Magistrate and gave his signatures and also wrote about 15 lines. On the ground that the petitioner has not given his signatures and hand-writing as directed by the High Court and, therefore, did not comply with the condition of bail, an application for cancellation of bail was filed by the complainant which has been allowed by the High Court vide impugned order.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. What emerges from the above is that the petitioner was made to write 15 lines. No objection even was raised before the Magistrate. However, the same time, there is some dispute about the form of signatures which the petitioner had given. Such a situation could have been remedied by calling him again and asking him to put proper signatures, under the direct supervision of the Magistrate. In these circumstances, while setting aside the order of the High Court canceling the bail, we direct the petitioner to appear before the concerned Magistrate once again and give his specimen signatures as well as writing. The concerned Magistrate shall ensure that the petitioner puts his specimen signatures in an appropriate form and the aforesaid exercise would be done under the direction supervision of the concerned Magistrate. The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Magistrate on 05.05.2017. 3 The special leave petition is disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
(Ashwani Thakur) (Mala Kumari Sharma)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER