Shri Pritpal Singh Vs. The State of Bihar and Anr.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 592 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3994/2000)
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3994/2000)
Petitioner: Shri Pritpal Singh
Respondent: The State of Bihar and Anr.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 592 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3994/2000)
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3994/2000)
Judges: D.P. MOHAPATRA & SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 27, 2001
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Sections 437, 439 – Cancellation of bail – Accused, a tenant of complainant – Compromise arrived at during pendency of criminal complaint – Not followed – Complainant moving for cancellation – No allegation of misuse of liberty granted to accused – Bail cancelled on sole ground of not honouring the compromise. Held that the ground on which bail was cancelled, was wholly unten-able. Orders of Magistrate and High Court set aside and bail restored. (Para 5)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents despite service of notice.
2. Leave granted.
3. The accused in the complaint case no. C-373/98 pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Daltonganj, Bihar, has filed this petition assailing the order passed by the Patna High Court on 28th September, 2000 in Crl. Misc. no. 3065/2000. In that case the appellant had challenged the order of the Magistrate cancell-ing the bail granted to him.
4. The dispute raised in the case relates to eviction of the appellant who is the tenant from the premises of which the re-spondent is the owner. Previously, there was a compromise between the parties in which it was agreed inter alia that the appellant will pay certain amount to the respondent and vacate the premises by the time stipulated. On the allegation that the appellant has failed to comply with the terms of the compromise by not vacating the premises in question within the time stipulated, the petition for cancellation of bail was filed. It is stated by learned Counsel for the appellant that neither any averment was made in the petition about misuse of liberty granted to the appellant nor any difficulty was alleged to have been faced by the prosecu-tion in the case on the ground of the appellant being at large.
5. The Magistrate cancelled the bail granted to the appellant solely on the ground that the terms of the compromise had not been complied with. To say the least, the ground on which the petition for cancellation of bail was made and was granted is wholly untenable. It is in our view that the order if allowed to stand will result in abuse of the process of court. The High Court clearly erred in maintaining the order. Therefore, the order passed by the Magistrate cancelling the bail and the order of the High Court confirming the said order are set aside. The bail order is restored. The appeal is allowed.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents despite service of notice.
2. Leave granted.
3. The accused in the complaint case no. C-373/98 pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Daltonganj, Bihar, has filed this petition assailing the order passed by the Patna High Court on 28th September, 2000 in Crl. Misc. no. 3065/2000. In that case the appellant had challenged the order of the Magistrate cancell-ing the bail granted to him.
4. The dispute raised in the case relates to eviction of the appellant who is the tenant from the premises of which the re-spondent is the owner. Previously, there was a compromise between the parties in which it was agreed inter alia that the appellant will pay certain amount to the respondent and vacate the premises by the time stipulated. On the allegation that the appellant has failed to comply with the terms of the compromise by not vacating the premises in question within the time stipulated, the petition for cancellation of bail was filed. It is stated by learned Counsel for the appellant that neither any averment was made in the petition about misuse of liberty granted to the appellant nor any difficulty was alleged to have been faced by the prosecu-tion in the case on the ground of the appellant being at large.
5. The Magistrate cancelled the bail granted to the appellant solely on the ground that the terms of the compromise had not been complied with. To say the least, the ground on which the petition for cancellation of bail was made and was granted is wholly untenable. It is in our view that the order if allowed to stand will result in abuse of the process of court. The High Court clearly erred in maintaining the order. Therefore, the order passed by the Magistrate cancelling the bail and the order of the High Court confirming the said order are set aside. The bail order is restored. The appeal is allowed.
