S U P R E M E C O U R T O F we N D we A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 2411/2016
(Arising out of impugned final visualisation and sequence antiquated 04-12-2015 in ABA No. 4049/2015 upheld by a High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi)
RUKMANI MAHATO Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondent(s)
(FOR APPOINT A GUARDIAN OF A MINOR ON IA 5323/2016
FOR [PERMISSION TO FILE ANNEXURES] ON IA 8357/2017)
Date : 03-08-2017 This matter was called on for conference today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Praveen Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Lakshay Dhamija, Adv.
Mr. Sahil Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Gautam Talukdar, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Atulesh Kumar, AOR
UPON conference a warn a Court done a following
O R D E R
1. In a benefaction special leave petition (Crl) No.2411 of 2016 an sequence antiquated 04.12.2015 of a High Court of Jharkhand refusing to extend pre-arrest bail to a accused-petitioner was Signature Not Verified Digitally sealed by NEETU KHAJURIA challenged.
On 04.04.2016 a following sequence was Date: 2017.08.04 17:28:08 IST
Reason: passed by this Court :
“Issue notice. In a eventuality a postulant is arrested, she might be expelled on bail by creation deposition of Rs.25,000/- in money to a compensation of a hearing Court and shall co-operate with a review during all serve stages.”
2. Clearly and evidently a sequence antiquated 04.04.2016 is an halt sequence of extenuation pre-arrest bail to a accused-petitioner.
3. It appears that on authorised advice, a postulant surrendered before a schooled Trial Court on 21.04.2016 and afterward expelled on unchanging bail.
4. When a pronounced fact was brought to a notice of a Court, a sequence antiquated 18.04.2017 was upheld to a following outcome :
“It is settled by a schooled warn for a accused-petitioner that a postulant has surrendered before a schooled Trial Court and a pronounced Court has postulated her unchanging bail.
By sequence antiquated 04.04.2016 this Court has postulated halt pre-arrest bail to a accused-petitioner with a instruction that a accused-petitioner shall concur with a investigation.It appears that on 21.04.2016 a accused-petitioner surrendered before a schooled Trial Court and in perspective of a sequence antiquated 04.04.2016 upheld by this Court a schooled Trial Court has postulated unchanging bail to a accused-petitioner. This is transparent from a approved duplicate of a Order antiquated 21.04.2016 of a schooled Trial Court, placed before us.
We do not see as to how or because a postulant could have surrendered before a schooled Trial Court and sought unchanging bail when a record in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2411 of 2016 were tentative before this Court.We also do not know how in perspective of a pendency of a pronounced record before this Court a schooled Trial Court could have postulated unchanging bail to a accused-petitioner.
In a aforesaid circumstance, we reason it correct to remember a sequence antiquated 04.04.2016 extenuation pre-arrest bail to a accused-petitioner and also to cancel a bail postulated to a accused-petitioner by a schooled Trial Court by a sequence antiquated 21.04.2016. The accused-petitioner shall forthwith obey before a schooled Trial Court. We also approach a Registrar General of a Jharkhand High Court to obtain reason of a Presiding Officer of a schooled Trial Court that has upheld a sequence antiquated 21.04.2006 in box No. GR-2786/2014 as to how a pronounced Court could have postulated bail when this Court was in seisin of a matter in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2411 of 2016.
The aforesaid reason be placed before a Court on or before 5th May, 2017.
List a matter on 5th May, 2017.”
5. On a discuss being done on 09.05.2017 a Court had destined that a matter to be listed after a summer vacation and in a meantime, if a postulant is not in custody, it was destined that she will not be arrested.
6. This is how a matter has come before us.
7. Pursuant to a sequence antiquated 18.04.2017, a reason of a authorised officer endangered has been forwarded to a Registry of this Court by a Registrar General of a High Court of Jharkhand.
8. We have perused a pronounced explanation. We have also review and deliberate a sequence antiquated 21.04.2017 upheld by a pronounced authorised officer extenuation unchanging bail to a accused-petitioner. On due care of a reason submitted on a sequence antiquated 21.04.2016, we are of a perspective that unchanging bail was postulated to a accused-petitioner on a misconstruction of this Court’s order, that misconstruction was a bonafide mistake on a partial of a authorised officer. The matter insofar as a authorised officer is endangered is, therefore, closed.
9. Coming to a box of a accused-petitioner and her purpose and control in a matter, we have perused a confirmation filed in this courtesy by a petitioner. The mount taken therein is that a postulant surrendered before a hearing Court and sought and was postulated unchanging bail on authorised advice. In divide 8 of a affidavit, a matter has been done that enquiries with a internal warn have suggested that it has turn a unchanging use for indicted to obey before a schooled hearing Court and find unchanging bail immediately after halt pre-arrest is postulated by a aloft forums.
10. When this Court or a High Court or even a Sessions Judge grants halt anticipatory bail and a matter is tentative before that Court, there can be no arise for a indicted to seem and obey before a schooled hearing justice and find unchanging bail. The difficulty of a subordinate Judge in deliberation a request for unchanging bail and a stupidity of rejecting of such bail in a face of a pre-arrest bail postulated by a aloft forum is real. Surrender and a bail focus in such resources is zero though an abuse of a routine of law by a endangered accused. Once a unchanging bail is postulated by a subordinate Court on a strength of a interim/pre-arest bail postulated by a higher Court, even if a higher Court is to boot a defence of anticipatory bail on fuller care of a matter, a unchanging bail postulated by a subordinate Court would continue to reason a field, digest a ultimate rejecting of a pre-arrest bail by a higher Court meaningless.
11. If this is a use that is prevalent in some of a subordinate Courts in a Country and we have had notice of several such cases, time has come to put a schooled subordinate Courts in a nation to notice that such a use contingency be dropped and care of unchanging bail applications on obey during a pendency of a focus for pre-arrest bail before a higher Court contingency be discouraged. We, therefore, approach that a duplicate of this sequence be forwarded to a Director of all Judicial Academies in a nation to be brought to a notice of all authorised officers sportive rapist office in their particular States.
12. Insofar as a benefaction box is concerned, we echo a sequence antiquated 18.04.2017 and remember a halt order(s) antiquated 04.04.2016 and 09.05.2017 as good as a sequence of unchanging bail postulated by a schooled hearing Court antiquated 21.04.2016 and approach that a indicted shall now obey before a schooled hearing Court within fifteen days from currently unwell that a questioning group will detain a indicted and take her into custody.
13. We also make it transparent that once a indicted is in custody, it will be open for her to pierce an focus for unchanging bail that as and when changed will be deliberate on a possess merits by a Court of efficient jurisdiction.
14. Special leave petition and all tentative application(s) are likely of in a above terms.
(NEETU KHAJURIA) (ASHA SONI)
COURT MASTER BRANCH OFFICER
