Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhanwar Singh vs . State Of Rajasthan on 12 May, 2015
Author: Vijay Bishnoi
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
O R D E R
S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.1866/2014
Bhanwar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Date of order : 12.05.2015
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Mr. H.S. Balot, for the petitioners.
Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, Public Prosecutor.
BY THE COURT:-
This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved with the order dated 16.4.2014 passed by the Chief Judicial Metropolitan Magistrate, Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Criminal Case No.19/2014 whereby the trial court has refused to extend the bail of the petitioners and summoned them through warrant of arrest.
Brief facts of the case are that an FIR No.209/2013 has been registered at Police Station, Sardarpura, Jodhpur Metropolitan against the petitioners and their son Mangu Singh for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and for the offence 2 punishable under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
After investigation, the police has proceeded to file charge sheet against Mangu Singh for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 201 I.P.C. and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, however, has filed charge sheet against the petitioners only for the offence punishable under Section 201 I.P.C.
The trial court, while considering the charge sheet filed by the police, has taken cognizance against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 201 and 304-B I.P.C. and in the alternative for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
At this stage, the petitioners moved an application before the trial court and prayed that since they have been released on bail by the police while exercising powers under Section 436 Cr.P.C., their bail may be extended. The trial court vide impugned order dated 16.4.2014 has rejected the said bail application while observing that as the court has taken cognizance against the petitioners for the offences punishable 304-B I.P.C. and in the alternative 3 under Section 302 I.P.C. and both are non- bailable offences, therefore, the bail granted to the petitioners by the police, cannot be extended.
Being aggrieved with this, the petitioners have filed this criminal misc. petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that once bail has been granted to the petitioners by police while exercising powers under Section 436 Cr.P.C., without cancelling of said bail, the petitioners cannot be arrested. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that first the bail granted by the police has to be cancelled and thereafter only the petitioners can be arrested. It is contended that in the present case, without cancellation of the bail of the petitioners, the trial court has summoned the petitioners through warrant of arrest and the said action of the trial court is absolutely illegal.
Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned order passed by the trial court.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. It is evident that in the first instance, the bail was granted to the petitioners and they were charged with an offence punishable under 4 Sections 201 I.P.C. only, which is a bailable offence. However, the trial court, after taking into consideration the material available on record, has ordered for taking cognizance against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 304-B I.P.C. and in the alternative for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. which are non-bailable offences.
This Court is of the opinion that when cognizance has been taken against the petitioners by trial court for non-bailable offences, the provisions of Section 436 Cr.P.C. are no more applicable in the case of the accused petitioners. The provisions of Section 436 Cr.P.C. were applicable to the case of the petitioners, when they were charged to have committed a bailable offence.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners to the effect that without cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioners by the police, they cannot be arrested, is without any merit.
Hence, it is held that when a person accused of bailable offence was released on bail by the police under Section 436 Cr.P.C. and is 5 subsequently charged for non-bailable offence, the Magistrate is not bound to extend the bail granted to the petitioners by the police and has every power to summon the accused persons through arrest warrant, if the accused persons have not appeared before the Court.
In view of above, this criminal misc. petition, without having any merit, is hereby dismissed. The stay petition is also dismissed.
[VIJAY BISHNOI],J.
` Babulal/ 14