Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. RAVEENDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. PANCHAL
Rasiklal
Versus
Kishore
Criminal Appeal No. ___ of 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 4008 of 2008)
Decided on : 20-02-2009
B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1972, Section 499 and 500:- Even where summons have been issued to an accused on a complaint filed under these provisions, the court can grant bail to the accused without hearing the complainant.(para 8, 10 and 11)
C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1972, Section436:- In a bailable offence, accused has a right to be enlarged on bail and it is not at the discretion of court. Unless he is not willing to offer the surety as put as condition, the accused cannot be denied bail. The bail so granted can be cancelled by the High Court in case his conduct so warrants. (Para 6)
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 princip
ArunKumar vs. State of Bihar and another JT 2008 (2) SC 584
Talab Haji Hussain vs. Madhukar Purushottam Mondkar and another 1958 SCR 1226
Ratilal Bhanji Mithani v. Asstt. Collector of Customs and Anr. 1967 (3) SCR 926
State Bank of Patiala vs. S.K. Sharma 1996 (3) SCC 364
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. S.G. Kotturappa 2005 (3) SCC 409
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.