Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"If the petitioner surrender before the concerned Court and move for bail, the Court would do well to dispose of the application on the day it is presented."

Needless to mention that the respondent No. 1/accused never surrendered. On 6.4.2009, one more petition came to be filed before the High Court being Cr. WJC No. 352 of 2008, wherein the High Court was pleased to direct the Magistrate to dispose of the objection petition filed by the complainant after hearing both the parties and it was directed that till then the issuance of process of attachment under Section 83 Cr.P.C. would remain stayed. Very strangely, in this order, the High Court observed:-

5. Needless to mention that the respondent No. 1/accused was still not arrested nor did he ever bother to appear before the Magistrate.

6. On 25.6.2009, after the charge sheet was filed, the father of the accused moved an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Arrah, saying that he did not have faith in the said Court and wanted to move a petition for transfer of this case before the District Judge, Arrah, and, therefore, the proceedings of the case be stayed. All this was probably done as the Magistrate had already initiated the proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C., finding that the accused was absconding. The Magistrate took the view that the father of the accused had no locus standi to file the said application and also came to the conclusion that there appeared to be good reasons for proceeding against the accused. The Magistrate, therefore, took cognizance of the offences. Then again, for some inexplicable reasons, nothing happened for five months and again on 10.11.2009, an application was moved before the Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, Arrah for an order under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail. The learned Sessions Judge noticed that the respondent No. 1/accused was already asked by this Court to surrender before the court below and move the bail application. It was also noted that the respondent No. 1/accused thereafter never bothered to appear though more than one year's time had elapsed. On that reasoning, the application was dismissed. Undaunted by this dismissal, the respondent No. 1/accused moved another application being Crl. Misc. Application No. 41823 of 2009 before the High Court on 21.12.2009, i.e. after more than one month of the dismissal of the earlier bail application. It was contended before the High Court that the charge sheet was filed only for the offences punishable under Section 306 IPC and not under Sections 302, 201 and 120 B IPC. A very novel statement was made that his father's kidney had failed and that the accused was going to donate the kidney and he should be granted provisional anticipatory bail. What flabbergasts us is that on this broad plea, the High Court granted eight months' provisional anticipatory bail to the respondent No. 1/accused. Very strangely, all this was on the backdrop of the rejection of all the applications made by the accused under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before all the Courts including this Court. Again, to say that we are surprised by this order, would be an under-statement. We also did not understand as to why eight months' time was required by the accused and granted by the High Court for donating the kidney. The respondent No. 1/accused again moved an application on 13.1.2010, stating that there was a typing error in the order dated 21.12.2009 passed by the High Court where he was wrongly described as Rakesh Bhardwaj instead of Rajesh Bhardwaj. It was also submitted that the charge sheet was filed under Sections 302, 201 and 120 B IPC and not under Section 306 IPC as was represented to the High Court. The matter then pended for another four months and came for hearing only on 4.5.2010. However, by that time, Dr. Vijay Laxmi, the mother of the respondent No. 1/accused had already expired. After her death, the respondent No. 1/accused was substituted in her place. It was during the course of arguments on Misc. Application No. 41823 of 2009 that the subject of the investigation not being properly done, cropped up, and it was urged that the matter should be re-investigated, though it was informed to the Court that the charge sheet was already filed about eight months prior to this date and the matter was also committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. The High Court ultimately passed the impugned order. The case was then fixed for hearing before the High Court on 21.6.2010 as the first case in the list. However, the trial has been stayed and the High Court has gone to the extent of selecting a new investigating officer.