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

1993 Supreme(P&H) 246

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
A.S. Nehra, J.
Bodh Raj - Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 617 of 1991.
Decided On : 22 April, 1993

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. K.S. Godara, AAG, Haryana.
For the Complainant :Mr. S.P. Laler, Advocate.

An order granting bail is a final order and not an interlocutory order, as it finally disposes of the application for bail.

Headnote:

BAIL - ORDER GRANTING BAIL - FINAL OR INTERLOCUTORY - REVISION PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY - ORDER GRANTING BAIL IS A FINAL ORDER AND REVISION PETITION AGAINST SUCH ORDER IS MAINTAINABLE.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner was granted bail by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhari, in a case registered against him under Sections 420/467/471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The State filed a revision petition against the order of bail, which was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari. The petitioner challenged the maintainability of the revision petition on the ground that the order of bail was an interlocutory order and, therefore, not revisable.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the order granting bail was a final order and the revision petition against such order was maintainable. The court relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharastra and Amar Nath and others v. State of Haryana and others, and the Bombay High Court in Miss R. Shakuntala v. Roshanlal Aggarwal and others, to hold that an order which finally disposes of the application for bail is a final order and not an interlocutory order.

Issues: Whether the order granting bail was a final order or an interlocutory order.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that an order granting bail is a final order and not an interlocutory order, as it finally disposes of the application for bail. The court relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court and the Bombay High Court to hold that an order which finally determines the rights of the parties in respect to a given stage or is simply a step in and in the course of proceedings like summoning of witnesses, issuing of commission or order of production of documents etc. is an interlocutory order.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

A.S. Nehra, J. - This revision petition is directed against the order dated 18 September, 1991, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari by which the order dated 21.6.1991 passed by Sh. Sanjeev Jindal, HCS, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhari were set aside.

2. The facts of the case are Mangal Sain Malik, brother of the petitioner lodged FIR No. 166 on 6.5.1991 at Police Station, Jagadhari under Sections 420/467/471 and 120-B Indian Penal Code on the allegations which read as under :-

"That I am resident of House No. 612 Sant Pura Model Town, Yamuna Nagar, vide registered deed dated 20-6-86, one house bearing No. C/13-97 measuring 30 x 60 was purchased by me and my brother Bodh Raj from one Brij Lal s/o Karam Chand for sale consideration of Rs. 30,000/-. Thereafter on 18.7.89 an arbitration agreement was entered into amongst we three brothers i.e. I, Roshan Lal and Bodh Raj and Virender Malik my son and Rakesh malik s/o Bodh Raj. Agreement was reduced to writing and we all signed the same and we entered into possession of respective shares as owners. According to the agreement House No. C/13-97 which I alongwith my brother Bodh Raj had purchased vide Registered Sale deed dated 20.6.86 for Rs. 30,000/- fell to my share and I am in possession of the same and an entry in municipal record was accordingly made on 27.3.1991, my brother Bodh Raj in my absence for cheating got a sale deed executed fraudulently and dishonestly by concealing true facts have committed offence under above said sections."

3. Petitioner filed an application under Section 438 Criminal Procedure Code for granting anticipatory bail in this case which was rejected by Sh. B.R. Vohra, Additional Sessions Judge, Yamunanagar at Jagadhari on 18th June, 1991. Thereafter the petitioner on 21st June, 1991 surrendered before the Duty Magistrate, Sh. Sanjeev Jindal. The request of the police for remand was declined by Sh. Sanjeev Jindal, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhari, and the petitioner was granted bail in the same day when the petitioner surrendered in his Court. the order passed by Sh. Sanjeev Jindal, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhari is as under :-

"The police has filed the application for police remand. Heard on the police remand, as well as on the application for bail filed on behalf of the accused.

The learned APP for the State has argued that the police remand of the accused is very necessary as the police has to recover the original registry, which is stated to have been forged by the accused Bodh Raj. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused has argued that the present application for police remand has been filed by the prosecution in connivance with the complainant just to humiliate the accused as the alleged registry has already been recovered by the Police. I find merit in this contention of the learned counsel for the accused in view of certified copy of police remand with respect to the investigation of the present case placed on file by the learned counsel for the accused. The perusal of aforesaid certified copy clearly shows that on 17.6.91 one Netra Parkash, who had been earlier acting as an Arbitrator between the complainant and the accused with respect to their pending disputes, had gone to the police station and had presented the registry in question to the police which is now sought to be recovered from the accused by the police. Learned APP for state still argued that the registry which was presented to the police was only the photocopy of the original and that the police in fact had to recover the original registry from the accused. I do not find any merit in these contentions of Ld. APP for the state, because the certified copy of police proceedings,placed on record by the learned counsel for the accused, clearly shows that the police has not mentioned that the registry presented by the said Netra Parkash was only the photostat copy and that the same was not original one.

Durin



























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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top