Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2017 (12) TMI 1819

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 017 whereby the High Court partly allowed the criminal revision petition filed by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein and set aside that part of the order dated 19.11.2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur in Session Trial No. 44/2016 whereby the Session Judge while allowing the application filed Under Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") by the Appellant (Complainant) issued non-bailable warrants against Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 for their arrest. 3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass so also the issue involved in the appeal is short. They, however, need mention infra. 4. Two Accused, namely, Vimlesh Kumar and Janak Singh are facing trial for the offences punishable Unde .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d filed Criminal Revision Under Section 197 of the Code in the High Court at Rajasthan out of which this appeal arises. The Complainant-Appellant herein at whose instance the order was passed by the Sessions Judge was, however, not impleaded as party in the revision. 9. By impugned order, the Single Judge allowed the revision in part and set aside that portion of the order of the Sessions Judge which had directed issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 while summoning them. The High Court then proceeded to issue further direction to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to surrender before the Trial Court and move the application for their regular bail, which would be considered and allowed by that Court on the same day on .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on-bailable warrants for the offences mentioned above. 5. Taking all the facts and circumstances of the case into consideration in totality, it appears that the order to the extent of summoning the Petitioners, Ashish Meena and Vimal Meena, through non-bailable warrants does not appear justified and is liable to be quashed and set aside. However, the Petitioners, Ashish Meena and Vimal Meena, are directed to surrender before the learned trial Court and to move application for their regular bail, which will be considered and allowed by that Court on the same day on which it is moved. 6. It is also made clear that the Accused/Petitioners will be at liberty to raise the contentions raised before this Court at the time of framing of charges .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... onsidered opinion, the High Court had no jurisdiction to direct the Sessions Judge to "allow" the application for grant of bail. Indeed, once such direction had been issued by the High Court then what was left for the Sessions Judge to decide except to follow the directions of the High Court and grant bail to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. In other words, in compliance to the mandatory directions issued by the High Court, the Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to reject the bail application but to allow it. 17. No superior Court in hierarchical jurisdiction can issue such direction/mandamus to any subordinate Court commanding them to pass a particular order on any application filed by any party. The judicial independence of every Court in passin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... een given. This Court cannot countenance issuing of such direction by the High Court. 21. In our view, at best, the High Court could have made an observation to the effect that the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (Accused persons) are at liberty to approach the Sessions Judge for grant of bail and, if any application is filed, it would be decided by the Sessions Judge on its merits and in accordance with law expeditiously but not beyond it. 22. We are, therefore, constrained to set aside the direction given by the High Court to the Sessions Judge to "consider and allow" the bail application made by Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 in Sessions Trial Case No. 44/2016 on the same day on which it was moved. 23. So far as the direction by which cognizance of th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates