Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Pradip Sahu vs The State Of Assam on 24 August, 2023
Bench: Hima Kohli, Rajesh Bindal
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2023
(PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRIMINAL) NO. 4876/2022)
PRADIP SAHU APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM RESPONDENT
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 17th December, 2021, passed by the Gauhati High Court on an application filed by him 1 seeking regular bail in Sootia Excise Circle Case No.181/2021-22 2. The High Court has expressed a view that appropriate legal action ought to be initiated against the appellant and those who had tried to misuse the process of law by filing application for bail in two different fora in respect of the very same crime.
3. It may be noted as a background that a bail application was filed by the appellant before the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Biswanath Chariali on 27th October, 2021 in connection with the same case which was rejected.
4. The first bail application moved by the appellant before the High Court was dismissed3. In the second bail application moved by the appellant 4, Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by GEETA AHUJA 1 under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for short ‘the CrPC’ Date: 2023.09.13 17:27:52 IST Reason: 2 registered under Section 53(1)(a) of the Assam Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018 3 on 11th November, 2021 4 on 24th November, 2021 1 notice was issued and the High Court had called for the records on 30 th November, 2021.
5. On 01st December, 2021, without awaiting the outcome of the pending application for bail moved by the appellant before the High Court, another application seeking the same relief was moved on his behalf before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Vishwanath Chariali.
6. The application for bail on 01st December, 2021 was allowed on the same day by the trial Court5. All these factors came to the knowledge of the High Court only on 08th December, 2021, when a report was received from the Registrar (Judicial) who was directed to conduct an inquiry into the matter. This was followed by passing of the impugned order.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant belongs to the Tea Tribe community in Assam and lives in a village where he ekes out a living as a cycle mechanic and his brother who was his pairokar, runs a small shop in the village. He submits that while the appellant was in custody, it was his brother who was pursuing the matter on his behalf and due to a bona fide lack of understanding of the procedures involved, he moved another application for bail on behalf of the appellant without realizing that earlier thereto, an application filed by him for the same relief was still pending before the High Court.
5 as per the impugned order the bail was granted on 06.12.2021 2
8. Having regard to the unqualified apology tendered by the appellant for the aforesaid conduct, and in view of the explanation offered, it is deemed appropriate to set aside the directions issued by the High Court in the impugned judgment, calling upon the Registrar (Judicial) to file an appropriate FIR/complaint against the appellant in the matter.
9. The appeal is disposed of while cautioning the appellant to be very careful in future. Pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of.
….........................J. ( HIMA KOHLI ) …..........................J. ( RAJESH BINDAL ) NEW DELHI 24th AUGUST, 2023 3 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2023 (PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRIMINAL) NO. 4501/2022) SRI MOHAN JENA APPELLANT VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM RESPONDENT ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 17th December, 2021, passed by the Gauhati High Court on an application filed by him 1 seeking regular bail in Sootia Excise Circle Case No.180/2021-22 2. The High Court has expressed a view that appropriate legal action ought to be initiated against the appellant and those who had tried to misuse the process of law by filing application for bail in two different fora in respect of the very same crime.
3. It may be noted as a background that a bail application was filed by the appellant before the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Biswanath Chariali on 27th October, 2021 in connection with the same case which was rejected.
4. The first bail application moved by the appellant before the High Court was dismissed3. In the second bail application moved by the appellant 4, 1 under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for short ‘the CrPC’ 2 registered under Section 53(1)(a) of the Assam Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018 3 on 11th November, 2021 4 on 25th November, 2021 1 notice was issued and the High Court had called for the records on 30 th November, 2021.
5. On 01st December, 2021, without awaiting the outcome of the pending application for bail moved by the appellant before the High Court, another application seeking the same relief was moved on his behalf before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Vishwanath Chariali.
6. The application for bail on 01st December, 2021 was allowed on the same day by the trial Court5. All these factors came to the knowledge of the High Court only on 08th December, 2021, when a report was received from the Registrar (Judicial) who was directed to conduct an inquiry into the matter. This was followed by passing of the impugned order.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant belongs to the Tea Tribe community in Assam and lives in a village. He submits that while the appellant was in custody, it was his son who was pursuing the matter on his behalf and due to a bona fide lack of understanding of the procedures involved, he moved another application for bail on behalf of the appellant without realizing that earlier thereto, an application filed by him for the same relief was still pending before the High Court. 5 as per the impugned order the bail was granted on 06.12.2021 2
8. Having regard to the unqualified apology tendered by the appellant for the aforesaid conduct, and in view of the explanation offered, it is deemed appropriate to set aside the directions issued by the High Court in the impugned judgment, calling upon the Registrar (Judicial) to file an appropriate FIR/complaint against the appellant in the matter.
9. The appeal is disposed of while cautioning the appellant to be very careful in future. Pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of.
….........................J. ( HIMA KOHLI ) …..........................J. ( RAJESH BINDAL ) NEW DELHI 24th AUGUST, 2023 3 ITEM NO.9 COURT NO.11 SECTION II 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). 4876/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 17-12-2021 in BA No. 3380/2021 passed by the Gauhati High Court) PRADIP SAHU Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM Respondent(s) WITH SLP(Crl) No. 4501/2022 (II) Date : 24-08-2023 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL For Petitioner(s) Mr. Somiran Sharma, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Debojit Borkakati, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the court made the following O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeals are disposed of in terms of the two separate signed orders which are placed on the file. Pending application(s), if any, are stand disposed of.
(Geeta Ahuja) (Nand Kishor)
Assistant Registrar-cum-PS Court Master (NSH)
4