IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.V. Raveendran, J.M. Panchal, JJ.
Rasiklal - Appellant
Versus
Kishore s/o Khanchand Wadhwani - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 343 OF 2009
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 4008 of 2008)
Decided on : February 20, 2009
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 499 and 500 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 200, 317, 436 – Anticipatory Bail - Seeking exemption for personal appearance - prayer for grant of bail - appellant gave an interview on December on Star News TV Channel and defamed him - Respondent therefore filed a Criminal Complaint court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Indore M.P. on January alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of Indian Penal Code - learned Judicial Magistrate examined the respondent on oath as required by Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and issued summons to the appellant for commission of alleged offences under Sections 499 and 500 of Indian Penal Code vide order dated May - Appellant appeared before court on November and submitted an application under Section 317 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 seeking exemption for personal appearance along with of his counsel - In said application prayer for grant of bail was also made - Application was fixed for hearing on December - However on December appellant filed an application mentioning his appearance before the court and to consider his prayer for grant of bail under Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as offences alleged to have been committed by him under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code are bailable – Held, Firm opinion that bail granted to appellant for alleged commission of bailable offence could not have been cancelled by the High Court on ground that complainant was not heard and thus principles of natural justice were violated - Principles of natural justice is not a mantra to be applied in vacuum in all cases - Question as to what extent principles of natural justice are required to be complied with will depend upon facts of case - They are not required to be complied with when it will lead to an empty formality See State Bank of Patiala State Road Transport Corporation impugned order is therefore liable to be set aside - For foregoing reasons appeal succeeds order March passed by learned Single Judge of High Court of Bench at in Criminal Revision cancelling the bail granted to appellant by learned Judicial Magistrate is hereby set aside and order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class in Criminal Complaint hereby restored - Appeal Disposed of
JUDGMENT
J.M. Panchal, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellant is accused in Criminal Complaint No. 1604 of 2005 filed in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore, M.P., for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code and assails the order dated March 24, 2008, rendered by the learned Single Judge of High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore, in Criminal Revision No. 1362 of 2006 by which bail granted to the appellant by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore, M.P. on December 1, 2006 is cancelled on the ground that the order granting bail was passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore, without hearing the original complainant and was, therefore, bad for violation of principles of natural justice.
3. It is the case of the respondent that the appellant gave an interview on December 15, 2004 on Star News TV Channel and defamed him. The respondent, therefore, filed a Criminal Complaint No. 1604 of 2005 in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore, M.P. on January 27, 2005 for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Judicial Magistrate examined the respondent on oath as required by Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and issued summons to the appellant for commission of alleged offences under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated May 9, 2006. The appellant appeared before the court on November 20, 2006 and submitted an application under Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking exemption for personal appearance along with vakalatnama of his counsel. In the said application prayer for grant of bail was also made. The application was fixed for hearing on December 26, 2006. However, on December 1, 2006 the appellant filed an application mentioning his appearance before the court and to consider his prayer for grant of bail under Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as offences alleged to have been committed by him under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code are bailable. The application was heard on the day on which it was filed. The learned Magistrate noticed that the offences alleged to have been committed by the appellant were bailable. Therefore, the appellant was admitted to bail on his furnishing a surety in the sum of Rs.5,000/- and also furnishing a bond of the same amount. While enlarging the appellant on bail the learned Magistrate imposed a condition on the appellant that he would appear before the court on each date of hearing or else he would be taken into custody and sent to jail. The order dated December 1, 2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate further indicates that in compliance of the direction issued by the court the appellant furnished a bail bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/- and also executed a bond for the said amount and that the bail bonds were accepted by the court after which the appellant was released on bail.
4. The respondent, who is original complainant, filed Criminal Revision No. 1362 of 2006 in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore, on December 26, 2006 for cancelling the bail granted to the appellant by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore, on the ground that he was not heard and, therefore, the order was violative of principles of natural justice. The learned Single Judge, before whom the revision application was notified for hearing, had issued notice to the appellant but the appellant did not remain present before the High Court. The revision application filed by the respondent was taken up for final disposal on March 24, 2008. The learned Single Judge, by order dated March 24, 2008, has cancelled the bail granted to the appellant by the learned Judicial Magistrate on the ground that the respondent, who was original complainant, was not heard and, therefore, the order granting bail violates the principles o
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.