SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1978 Supreme(Raj) 248

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
S.K.Mal Lodha, J.
Bhanwar Lal and Dhan Raj - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Crim. Misc Application Nos. 71, 189 and 70 of 1978. (copy received on 2.1.1979.).
Decided On : 12-07-1978

Advocates:
For the Applicant:M.C. Bhandari and Sayar Chand, Bilam Chand Mehta, Advocate.
For the Respondent: M.D. Purohit, P.P.

The inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, can be invoked to modify an order granting anticipatory bail, provided one of the three conditions laid down in Section 482 is fulfilled.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - Section 482 - Inherent Powers of the Court - Modification of Order - Conditions for Grant of Anticipatory Bail - Deposit of Money - Review of Order.

Fact of the Case:

The applicant, Bhanwarlal, and his father, Dhanraj, were granted anticipatory bail by the Vacation Judge on the condition that they deposit Rs. 15,000/- with the Investigating Officer, who would pay it to the complainant. The applicant filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking modification of the order, contending that the condition was imposed on an erroneous assumption and was not warranted by the provisions of the Code.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the condition to deposit Rs. 15,000/- was imposed under an erroneous assumption of facts and was not warranted by the provisions of Section 437 or 438 of the Code. The court further held that the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code could be invoked to modify, recall, or review an order once made by the Court, provided one of the three conditions laid down in Section 482 was fulfilled.

Issues: 1. Whether the order granting anticipatory bail was a 'final order' within the meaning of Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973? 2. Whether the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code could be invoked to modify the order granting anticipatory bail? 3. Whether the condition to deposit Rs. 15,000/- was imposed on an erroneous assumption and was not warranted by the provisions of the Code?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that an order granting anticipatory bail is merely an interlocutory order and not a 'final order' within the meaning of Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. The court held that the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code could be invoked to modify the order granting anticipatory bail, as the condition to deposit Rs. 15,000/- was imposed on an erroneous assumption and was not warranted by the provisions of the Code. 3. The court held that the condition to deposit Rs. 15,000/- was imposed on an erroneous assumption and was not warranted by the provisions of Section 437 or 438 of the Code.

Final Decision: The court allowed the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and modified the order dated June 9, 1978, by recalling the condition to deposit Rs. 15,000/-.

JUDGMENT

1. - I have heard all these three connected applications together and propose to decide them together by a common order. First of all, I deal with S.B. Crime Misc. Application No. 71 of 1978.

2. A resume of events leading to this application may be briefly noticed. The Manager of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Branch Officer, Pali, lodged a first information report before the Station Home Officer, Pali, on June 6, 1978, under Sections 420, 467 and 458 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicant and his father Dan Raj. It was alleged in that report that this firm M/S Chandmal Dhanraj Dharoliya which is a partnership firm and whose partners amongst; others are applicant and his father Dhanraj was having bill purchase account with the aforesaid Bank. While operating the bill purchase account, the applicant took an advance of Rs. 14211.36 P. from the aforesaid bank on April 26, 1976 against the four Hundis and the relevant purchase vouchers, insurance declarations etc. It is further alleged that the entire documents were sent through the State Bank of India, Rohtak. As the consignee did not retire the documents by making the payment of the amount to the State Bank of India, Rohtak, it (State Bank of India, Rohtak) returned the unpaid Hundis and the relevant documents. As a result of this, Rs. 14241.36 were not credited to the account of M/S Chandmal Dhanraj Dharoliya. The amount of Rs. 14241.36 P, which was paid in advance by the aforesaid Bank on April 26, 1976, was thus not credited, This led to the lodging of the first information report against the applicant as well as his father under Sections 420, 467 and 468 IPC. The applicant Bhanwarlal and his father Dhanraj submitted an application under Section 438 CrPC. The application under Section 438 CrPC was submitted on behalf of the applicant and his father Dhanraj by Shri Deep Chand Sharma, Advocate. It needs to be mentioned here that power of attorney to Shri Deep Chand Sharma was given by the applicant alone. This application came up for orders before the learned Vacation Judge on June 9, 1978. The learned Vacation Judge passed the following order,-

"I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties The principal contention of Mr. Deep Chand is that it has been a civil dispute which has been converted into a criminal case. He further submits that he is prepared to deposit Rs. 15000/-, in the first instance for being paid to the complainant.

3. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, it is ordered that the petitioners, if arrested, would be kept on bail in case they submit two sureties of Rs. 15000/-, each, and a personal bond of Rs. 30000/-, each to the satisfaction of the Munsiff Magistrate, Pali. This would be on the condition that they first deposit Rs. 15000/- with the Investigating Officer who would pay it to the complainant under proper receipt to be given to the accused after verification by the Station House Officer. The bail bonds would contain the following conditions:

(a) the petitioners would produce themselves before the investigation agency for interrogation or investigation as and when called upon;

(b) that they would further appear before the court as and when called upon;

(c) they would not tamper with the evidence and would not intimidate the witnesses;

(d) they would not leave India without the permission of the trial court.

4. Thereafter, on behalf of the applicant's father (Dhanraj), an application under Section 482 of the Code was moved by Shri Bilam Chind Mehta, Advocate on June 13, 1978 with the following prayer.-

"...prayed to either review or amend the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 9th June, 1978, while exercising the power under Section 482 CrPC to maintain the order in question of the fact relating to release of the petitioner on bail and by deleting the order in respect of discharging liability of Rs. 15000/- by the petitioner or to pass the suitable order which this Hon'ble Court deems proper and reasonable in the inter






























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top