Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Tara Chand Sharma S/O Sh. Udda Lal Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan on 30 June, 2022
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9804/2022
Tara Chand Sharma S/o Sh. Udda Lal Sharma
----Accused-Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan through PP & Anr.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mangal Singh Saini, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
30/06/2022
1. Apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR No. 144/2022 registered at Police Station Uniyara District Tonk for the offence(s) under Sections 353, 186 of IPC and Sections 3(i)(m) 3(i)(r) of SC/ST Act, the petitioner has preferred this anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an advocate and he has been practising since 2013. He pursues his assigned work with full decency and no complaint of misbehavior has ever been reported.
A suit for correction of entries and declaration of rights came to be submitted in the Court of Assistant Collector, Uniyara, District Tonk in the year 1991 which came to be decreed on 14.03.2001 and thus, an application under relevant rules of Order 21 of Code of Civil Procedure for the execution of the decree was filed before the concerned Court but the same could not be proceeded in accordance with law; therefore, as a son and in the capacity of a lawyer, he insisted the learned SDO to do the needful (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 12:31:07 AM) (2 of 5) [CRLMB-9804/2022] in accordance with law but on the pretext of something or the other, the matter got adjourned on several occasions.
Looking to the inordinate delay in execution of proceedings, the affected party approached this Court for issuance of appropriate directions to the Court below to expedite the proceedings and a coordinate bench of this Court, vide order dated 23.01.2018 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.24203/2017, directed the learned SDO (Sub-Divisional Officer, Uniyara) to expedite the execution proceedings and decide the same within a period of one year from the date of reciept of that order. The aforesaid order dated 23.01.2018 had been submitted with the learned SDO way back in the year 2018 itself but the officers did not pay any heed to the matter.
Aggrieved by the inaction and dereliction of duty, the petitioner again approached this Court by way of filling a Contempt Petition No. 214/2021 imploring that since the order passed by this Court has been flouted deliberately and wilfully, therefore, the contemnors may be suitably punished.
A coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 26.08.2021, issued notice to the respondents, returnable within three weeks. It is notable that the complainant of this case, Ms. Rajani Meena, an RAS Officer, is one of the respondents in the contempt proceeding. It is strenuously urged that the officer got irked by the action taken by the petitioner against her, therefore, she used to humiliate him on each and every date of hearing. For instance, the petitioner went to the Court for obtaining a certified copy on 24.06.2022, for which requisite application had been filed on 22.06.2022; yet, for one or the other reason, and just with a view to spite the petitioner, the desired copies were not supplied (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 12:31:07 AM) (3 of 5) [CRLMB-9804/2022] to him. When he made a complaint before the concerned officer, she scolded him and then threatened to lodge a criminal case and in consequence thereof, an FIR No.144/2022 has been lodged. The allegations levelled in the FIR are highly absurd, improbable and patently false which can be presumed from the fact that the alleged incident took place on 24.06.2022 and the complainant, who is an RAS Officer, approached the Police Station for lodging the said FIR on 26.06.2022. Thus, he prayed for indulgence of this Court since he is a reputed person and a practising lawyer and strongly apprehends that under the pressure of an RAS officer, he may be arrested by the police. Therefore, he has directly approached this Court seeking an anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel for the petitioner avers that arrest of the petitioner may cause incalculable harm to his reputation and self- esteem. Apart from the penal provisions of SC/ST Act, the other offences are bailable for which it is asserted that the same are nothing but a bundle of lies. Therefore, interim protection may kindly be granted. It is vehemently submitted that since the complainant of this case is a well-educated lady and an RAS Officer, therefore, out of personal vendetta, she has used the stringent provisions of SC/ST Act as a weapon to harass the petitioner.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record.
4. The impediment contained under Section 18/18A of the SC/ST Act, 1989 does not come in the way of entertaining the anticipatory bail plea of an accused in view of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2020) 4 SCC (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 12:31:07 AM) (4 of 5) [CRLMB-9804/2022] 727 as well as in case of Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. The State of Maharashtra reported in (2018) 6 SCC 454 wherein it has been held that the bar under Sections 18 and 18A of the SC/ST Act cannot be considered to be absolute.
5. Section 438 of Cr.P.C. does not preclude any person from approaching this Court directly as even a plain reading of the provision would reveal that whenever any person has a reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may approach either the Court of Sessions or the High Court.
Now, the question would arise that whether an anticipatory bail application can be entertained by the High Court without approaching the Court of Sessions first. Through various judicial pronouncements, it has been propounded that an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. can be entertained by the High Court directly in special circumstances.
Looking to the special features of this case, this Court feels it appropriate to entertain the bail application directly. Thus, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that in the distinct circumstances of this case, the anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. can be filed directly before this Court.
6. From the bare perusal of the FIR and after consideration of the submissions made at the Bar, prima facie this Court is of the opinion that the penal provisions of SC/ST Act are not required to be invoked in this case as it reeks of fudging and falsification; yet, for the final ascertainment, it would be appropriate to hear both the parties.
Proceeding in view of the prima facie opinion, this Court feels persuaded to entertain the bail application under Section 438 of (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 12:31:07 AM) (5 of 5) [CRLMB-9804/2022] Cr.P.C. in view of the propositions laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Prathvi Raj Chauhan (supra) and Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan (supra).
Looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the statutory provisions, an opportunity of hearing is required to be given to the complainant.
Thus, issue notice, returnable within two weeks. In the meanwhile and until further order, the petitioner shall not be arrested.
However, he would be required to join the investigation and to submit documents if he wishes to do so, to the Investigating Officer.
List the matter after two weeks.
(FARJAND ALI),J Gaurav Sharma/211 (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 12:31:07 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)