• Jagmohan Bahl Vs. State

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860- Chapter-XVII- Sections-420 IPC

    [Cancellation Of Bail Judgments]

    Cancellation of bail- During Trial- Offfences 10 yrs & More Punishment- Cheating Case

    • FIR against conspiring for cheating, breach of trust and misappropriation by fraudulently entering into Agreement to Sell- Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 -- Sections 438 & 439(2) -- Anticipatory Bail -- Forum shopping, holding perverse on ground available for cancelation of bail -- FIR against conspiring for cheating, breach of trust and misappropriation by fraudulently entering into Agreement to Sell but before execution of sale deed appellants entered into Agreement for Sale with another person -- Appellant bail was rejected by first Sessions Judge but after three weeks of rejecting the bail they were enlarged on bail by another Judge on a separate application -- High Court set aside bail order -- Held, though forum shopping was not permissible as held by High Court, but the High Court considered the perversity on ground which were available for cancelation of bail which ought to lancinated in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction to nullify the bail order -- Corollary would have been to set aside the order as it has been passed in an illegal manner -- Generally in these circumstances we ought to set aside the bail granted illegally and direct to move fresh bail application for consideration, but we are not doing so and restoring the bail order with direction to abide by conditions imposed by the Court.- Head Note-2- Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 -- Sections 438 & 439(2) -- Anticipatory Bail -- Forum shopping -- Rejected by first Judge, but granted by second judge -- FIR against conspiring for cheating, breach of trust and misappropriation by fraudulently entering into Agreement to Sell and receiving earnest amount, but before execution of sale deed appellants entered into Agreement for Sale with another person -- Appellant's first bail was rejected by Sessions Judge, but after three weeks of its rejection, they were enlarged on bail by another Judge on a fresh application -- High Court set aside bail order -- Held, the learned Judge, who has declined to entertain the prayer for grant of bail, if available, should hear the second bail application or the successive bail applications -- It is in consonance with the principle of judicial decorum, discipline and propriety -- Unscrupulous litigants are not to be allowed even to remotely entertain the idea that they can engage in forum-shopping, depreciable conduct in the field of law.- HELD: To appreciate the analysis made by the High Court we have bestowed our anxious consideration and perused the order impugned. As far as the distinction drawn by the High Court between the categories of situations, namely, a bail order passed in a perverse manner excluding the relevant matters and considering the extraneous matters which deserves to be lancinated in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction to nullify the same and the other, which is fundamentally and absolutely situation based for cancelling the order of bail because of violation of the terms and conditions of the order granting bail and other supervening circumstances, the distinction gets support from the recent decisions rendered in Ash Mohammad V. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu & Anr., (2012) 9 SCC 446 and Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another, Crl. Appeal No. 2587 of 2014 (judgment pronounced on 16.12.2014), which have taken note of number of earlier authorities. However, the said situation or circumstance does not arise in the case at hand (Para 8).- Further Held- Having said what we have stated hereinabove, the natural corollary would have been to set aside the order as it has been passed in an illegal manner. Ordinarily we would have issued that direction but, a significant one, in the present case, the allegations, as we find, are quite different. The FIR was instituted under Section 420/34 IPC and relates to execution of an agreement. In such a situation, we do not intend to set aside the order and direct the appellants to move a fresh application for bail under Section 438 CrPC. We are only inclined to direct that the bail order granted in their favour shall remain in force and the appellants shall abide by the terms and conditions imposed by the Court and would not deviate from any of the conditions (Para 16)- Further Further Held- Consequently, we dispose of the appeal concurring with the reasoning given by the High Court, but in the facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside the direction cancelling the order of bail (Para 17).- Further Held- On a perusal of the order passed by the High Court, we find that it has felt disturbed that the second application under Section 438 CrPC was allowed by another Additional Sessions Judge who had not dealt with the first application. It has opined that the Second Judge could not have entertained the bail application especially when the earlier Judge was available. To elaborate, the Additional Sessions Judge who has dealt with the matter on the first occasion, had neither been transferred from the said court, nor had he become incapacitated to come to court nor was he absent for a considerable length of time. As it appears, the High Court has taken exception to the fact that the application was moved when the 2nd Judge was allotted the roaster to deal with the application under Section 438 CrPC (Para 7)- Further Held- On a perusal of the aforesaid authorities, it is clear to us that the learned Judge, who has declined to entertain the prayer for grant of bail, if available, should hear the second bail application or the successive bail applications. It is in consonance with the principle of judicial decorum, discipline and propriety. Needless to say, unless such principle is adhered to, there is enormous possibility of forum-shopping which has no sanction in law and definitely, has no sanctity. If the same is allowed to prevail, it is likely to usher in anarchy, whim and caprice and in the ultimate eventuate shake the faith in the adjudicating system. This cannot be allowed to be encouraged. In this regard we may refer to the pronouncement in Chetak Construction Ltd. V. Om Prakash and others, (1998) 4 SCC 577, wherein this Court has observed that a litigant cannot be permitted "choice" of the "forum" and every attempt at "forum-shopping" must be crushed with a heavy hand. In Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Association V. S.C. Sekar and others, (2009) 2 SCC 784, it has been observed that the superior courts of this country must discourage forum-shopping (Para 13)- Further Held- Though the said decisions were rendered in different context, the principle stated therein is applicable to the case of present nature. Unscrupulous litigants are not to be allowed even to remotely entertain the idea that they can engage in forum- shopping, depreciable conduct in the field of law (Para 14)- Referred Judgments- Shahzad Hasan Khan V. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan and Anr., (1987) 2 SCC 684, State of Maharashtra V. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao, (1989) Supp (2) SCC 605, M. Jagan Mohan Rao v. P.V. Mohan Rao, (2010) 15 SCC 491, Vikramjit Singh V. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1992 SC 474, Judgment- Jagmohan Bahl v. State (NCT of Delhi), Criminal Appeal No. 2335/2014 Judgment Dated- 18/12/2014), Bench- Dipak Misra & Uday Umesh Lalit, JJ., Citations- 2014(14) JT 369= 2014(14) SCALE 224= 2014(10) SLT 605.
Live2Support.com
All original content on these pages is fingerprinted and certified by Digiprove