IMPORANT POINT
The inherent powers of the High Court saved u/s 482 have to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and in rare cases, and that too to correct patent illegalities or when some miscarriage of justice is done. These are not to be invoked in respect of any matter covered by specific provisions of the Code or if its exercise would infringe any specific provision of the Code.

Headnote:Code of Criminal Procedure, 193 – Section 482 – The inherent powers of the High Court saved us 482 have to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and in rare cases and that too to correct patent illegalities or when some miscarriage of justice is done – These are not to be invoked in respect of any matter covered by specific provisions of the Code or if its exercise would infringe any specific provision of the Code – When the offence was converted from those under Section 324, 352 and 506 IPC to those under section 304 and 302/34, the respondents, deliberately, instead of moving the court below for bail approached High Court u/s 482 in order to circumvent the requirement to surrender as the bail application could be entertained and heard only if the accused were in custody – High Court committed a manifest error in not only entertaining the application u/s 482 but also issuing a direction to the subordinate court to accept the sureties and bail bonds for the offence under Section 304 IPC the ultimate result whereof was that the order of bail granted in favour of the accused for an offence under Sections 324, 352 and 506 IPC enured to their benefit even after the offence had been converted into one under Section 304 IPC and also subsequently when charge had been framed against them under Section 302/34 – The accused did not remain in custody even for a single day nor did they approach the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate or Sessions Judge for being granted bail under Section 304 or 302 IPC, yet they got the privilege of bail under the aforesaid offences by virtue of the order passed by the High Court – Orders of High Court set aside being not sustainable. (Paras 6, 7, 9, 10 and 13) AIR 1945 PC 18; AIR 1978 SC 47; (2003) 6 SCC 641; (1999) 6 SCC 146 – Relied upon. Administration of Justice – The dockets of the High Courts are full and there is a long pendency of murder appeals in the High Court – Ends of justice would be better served if valuable time of the Court is spent in hearing those appeals rather than entertaining petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at an interlocutory stage which are often filed with some oblique motive in order to circumvent the prescribed procedure, or to delay the trial which will enable the accused to win over the witnesses by money or muscle power or they may become disinterested in giving evidence, ultimately resulting in miscarriage of justice. (Para 13).
       Facts of the case :
       The appellant Hamida lodged an FIR at P.S. Kotwali, Muzaffarnagar at 00.10 hours on 13.6.2005 alleging that when her husband Balla was participating in a Panchayat of the Biradari (community) the four accused respondents lodged an attack upon him with licensed and illegal arms, exhorting that they would kill him. Naushad accused assaulted him with a ‘chhuri’ (long knife) due to which Balla received serious injuries. The other accused fired from their respective weapons and thereafter ran away from the scene of occurrence. On the basis of the FIR lodged by the appellant, a case was registered as Crime No. 792 of 2005 under Sections 324, 352 and 506 IPC at P.S. Kotwali, Muzaffarnagar. The injured Balla was rushed to the District Hospital, where he was medically examined at 11.10 p.m. on 12.6.2005. He had sustained serious stab wound in his abdomen from which loops of intestines were coming out. He ultimately succumbed to injuries and offences were converted in to 304 and 302/34.
       Findings of the Court :
       High Court committed a manifest error in not only entertaining the application u/s 482 but also issuing a direction to the subordinate court to accept the sureties and bail bonds for the offence under Section 304 IPC the ultimate result whereof was that the order of bail granted in favour of the accused for an offence under Sections 324, 352 and 506 IPC enured to their benefit even after the offence had been converted into one under Section 304 IPC and also subsequently when charge had been framed against them under Section 302/34 – The accused did not remain in custody even for a single day nor did they approach the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate or Sessions Judge for being granted bail under Section 304 or 302 IPC, yet they got the privilege of bail under the aforesaid offences by virtue of the order passed by the High Court

J U DG M E N T

G. P. MATHUR, J. —

1.Leave granted.

2.This appeal, by special leave, has been filed by the complainant Hamida widow of Balla against the judgment and order dated 1.7.2005 of Allahabad High Court, by which the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the accused respondents herein was disposed of with certain directions. By the impugned order it was directed that the accused respondents, who had been initially granted bail in offences under Sections 324, 352 and 506 IPC by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar, would continue to remain on bail even after the offence had been converted to one under Section 304 IPC, if they furnished the requisite personal bonds and sureties before the concerned Court.

3.The appellant Hamida lodged an FIR at P.S. Kotwali, Muzaffarnagar at 00.10 hours on 13.6.2005 alleging that when her husband Balla was participating in a Panchayat of the Biradari (community) the four accused respondents lodged an attack upon him with licensed and illegal arms, exhorting that they would kill him. Naushad accused assaulted him with a ‘chhuri’ (long knife) due to which Balla received serious injuries. The other accused fired from their respective weapons and thereafter ran away from the scene of occurrence. On the basis of the FIR lodged by the appellant, a case was registered as Crime No. 792 of 2005 under Sections 324, 352 and 506 IPC at P.S. Kotwali, Muzaffarnagar. The injured Balla was rushed to the District Hospital, where he was medically examined at 11.10 p.m. on 12.6.2005. He had sustained serious stab wound in his abdomen from which loops of intestines were coming out.

4.Two accused respondents were arrested by the police and were produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 13.6.2005 for the purpose of seeking remand. The accused also moved a bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No.792 of 2005 which had been registered against them.The complainant-appellant Hamida also put in appearance through a counsel and filed an affidavit stating that as a serious injury had been caused to the injured Balla and accused had resorted to firing, the offence committed by them was one under Section 307 IPC, but the police in collusion with the accused had registered the case only under Sections 324, 352 and 506 IPC. It was also submitted that on account of the serious injuries received by the injured Balla, he had been referred to the Medical College, Meerut, and the bail application should be heard after summoning the medical examination report. The learned CJM, however, observed that remand of the accused had been sought only in the offences in which the case had been registered against them and as the offences were bailable, they were entitled to bail. He accordingly passed an order on the same day i.e. 13.6.2005 granting bail to the accused Rashid and Arshad. It was, however, made clear in the order that if the case was converted into a more serious offence, the accused would not get any benefit of the bail being granted to them. Subsequently, the remaining two accused were also released on bail. Balla succumbed to his injuries in the night intervening 16th and 17th of June, 2005. Thereafter, the offence was converted into one under Section 304 IPC. It was at this stage that the four accused respondents filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court seeking a direction to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar, to permit them to remain on same bail even after conversion of the offence into one under Section 304 IPC. The only submission made before the High Court was that on the same facts and circumstances, the accused had been granted bail by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and they had not misused the privilege of the bail and, therefore, they should be allowed to remain on bail even after conversion of offence. The High Court accepted the prayer made on behalf of the accused respondents and the relevant part of the order, which is under chal

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 620

2007(4) Supreme 113SUPREME COURT OF INDIA(From Allahabad High Court)G.P. Mathur & A.K. Mathur, JJHamida —PetitionerversusRashid @ Rasheed & Ors — RespondentCriminal Appeal No. 632 of 2007(@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.4891of 2005)Decided on : 27-04-2007

Cases Referred (4)

2007(4) Supreme 113
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Allahabad High Court)
G.P. Mathur & A.K. Mathur, JJ
Hamida —Petitioner
versus
Rashid @ Rasheed & Ors — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 632 of 2007
(@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.4891of 2005)
Decided on : 27-04-2007