HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 35/2021

IN

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.14385/2020

Banwari S/o Shri Prem Singh, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of

Rela, P.s. Kathumar, Distt. Alwar (Raj.)

----Petitioner/Complainant

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp Rajasthan High Court,

Jaipur Bench, Jaipur

----Non-Petitioner

2.

Ram Kishan S/o Shri Ramsahay, Aged about 42 years,

R/o Rela, P.s. Kathumar, Distt. Alwar (Raj.)

----Non-Petitioner No.2/Accused

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Rajendra Prasad Sharma

through VC

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Atul Sharma, PP

Mr. Anshuman Saxena

Mr. Suresh Kumar, SHO,

Police Station Kathumar,

District Alwar

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Order

23/02/2022

The present bail cancellation application has been filed under

Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. against the order dated 24.11.2020 passed

by this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant submitted

that after his release on bail, the accused-respondent No.2

threatened the complainant and his other family members to

settle the dispute and hence, the benefit of bail extended to him

deserves to be recalled in view of misuse of liberty. He, in support

(2 of 4)

[CRLBC-35/2021]

of his submissions, relied upon prevention action dated

20.02.2021 taken by SHO, Police Station Kathumar, District Alwar

under Section 151 CrPC.

Learned Public Prosecutor submitted, on instruction from Mr.

Suresh Kumar, SHO, Police Station Kathumar, District Alwar that

the accused-respondent No.2 is complying with the conditions on

which he was released on bail under Section 151 CrPC.

Learned counsel for the accused-respondent submitted that

proceedings under Section 151 CrPC were carried out in highly

illegal and arbitrary manner dehors the statutory provision. He

submitted that neither there was any complaint against him by the

complainant nor, the proceedings under Section 151 CrPC reveal

statement either of complainant or of any independent witness or

even of the police personnel recorded therein. He submitted that

though order-sheet of the Office of Sub-Divisional Magistrate,

Kathumar dated 20.02.2021 shows proceedings having been

carried out under Section 111 CrPC but, no such order is available

on record. Drawing attention of this Court towards a Division

Bench judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi dated 01.11.2018

in case of Aldanish Rein Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. in

Writ Petition (Criminal) No.2039/2018, learned counsel

submitted that the mandatory procedural requirement under

Section 151 CrPC was not followed in the present case and

therefore the benefit of bail extended to the petitioner cannot be

cancelled only on account of proceedings under Section 151 CrPC.

Heard. Considered.

A perusal of the original record of the complaint

No.18/34/2021 filed by SHO, Police Station Kathumar under

Section 151 CrPC does not reveal any complaint by the petitioner

(3 of 4)

[CRLBC-35/2021]

herein as stated in the memo of bail cancellation application. It

also does not reflect that statement of either the complainant or

any independent witness or even of the police personnel, who are

stated to have witnessed the incident, were recorded. The original

record does not contain any order passed under Section 111 CrPC

as mentioned in the order dated 20.02.2021. A Division Bench of

the Delhi High Court has, in case of Aldanish Rein (supra), held

as under:

“(v) No order of remanding a person to a judicial

custody can be passed by the SEM without satisfying

himself:

(a) That the person arrested has been informed

of his constitutional rights under Articles 20, 21 and

22 of the Constitution. The SEM should himself explain

or have it explained to the person in his presence in a

language understood by that person of the

aforementioned constitutional rights.

(b) The SEM must as