Banney Singh and Another vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Hon''ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi

The present petition has been filed by the petitioners-accused u/s 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 2.12.2011 passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, No. 3, Kota in Criminal Misc. Application No. 372 of 2011, whereby the applications filed by the petitioners u/s 438 and Section 70(2) of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail and cancellation of arrest warrant have been dismissed by the court. Heard Learned Counsel Mr. Anshuman Saxena for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Peeyush Kumar for the State.

It appears that the petitioner No.1 Banney Singh was convicted for the offences under sections 148, 302/ 149 and 307/ 149 IPC and the petitioner No.2-Shivraj Singh was convicted for the offences under sections 148, 302, 302/ 149 and 307/ 149 IPC by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, No. 3 Kota in Sessions Case No.2/ 1993 vide the judgment dated 7.9.1995 and both of them were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The said conviction was confirmed by the High Court as well as by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. It further appears that during the pendency of the appeal before the Supreme Court, considering the period of incarnation, the Hon''ble Supreme Court had released the petitioners on bail vide the order dated 27.1.2010. The operative part of the order reads as under:

Having regard to the above and since the appellants have undergone a substantial period of the sentence, and they are all said to be of advanced age, let them be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

It appears that thereafter the petitioners did not comply with the said order passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court and they were released by the State Government on permanent parole on 26.6.2010 under the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958. It further appears that thereafter the Hon''ble Supreme Court vide the judgment and order dated 2.9.2011 had dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioners against their conviction confirmed by the High Court and passed the following order:

In view of the above discussion and conclusion, we agree with the decision of the High Court, consequently, all the appeals are dismissed.

The Apex Court further passed the following order-

this Court for the reasons stated in its Judgment doth order that the appeals above mentioned be and are hereby dismissed.

That the order of this Court dated 27th January passed in Crl. A. No. 558 of 2003 granting bail to the appellants herein viz (i) Arjun Singh (ii) Banney Singh (iii) Shivraj Singh, all sons Shri Ballabh Singh, be and is hereby vacated and bail bonds if any executed by them in pursuance of the said order be and are hereby canceled.

Pursuant to the said order passed by the Apex Court, the trial court appears to have issued warrants of arrest against the petitioners. The petitioners thereafter submitted the applications, one u/s 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail and other u/s 70(2) of Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of warrants of arrest. The trial court dismissed both the applicants vide the impugned order dated 2.12.2011, against which, the present petition has been filed by the petitioners.

At the outset, it is required to be stated that the petitioners though have produced the impugned order dated 2.12.2011 passed by the trial court, have not produced along with the present petition, the relevant order under which warrants of arrest were issued against them. The petitioners have also not produced the copy of the order passed by the Apex Court directing to cancel their bail bonds, on the dismissal of their Appeals, nor have produced the order dated 27.1.2010 of the Apex Court granting them the interim bail. It is needles to say that the petitioners invoking the inherent and extra ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. or under Article 226/ 227 of the Constitution, are duty bound to produce all the material documents and orders relevant for the case, and that any suppression of material fact or document itself would be the ground to dismiss the petition. The petitioners by way of clever drafting of petition have prayed to set aside the impugned order dated 2.12.2011 and also sought the direction to cancel the warrants of arrest issued against the petitioners, without producing the order passed by the trial court issuing such warrants. Such a conduct and approach of the petitioners smack of malafide intention and therefore the petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts and documents alone.

So far as the merits of the case are concerned, it has been submitted by Learned Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have already been granted benefit of permanent parole by the State Government, and therefore the warrants of arrest issued against them be canceled. this Court does not find any substance in the said submission of the Learned Counsel for the petitioners. Merely because they have been granted the benefit of permanent parole by the State Government under the relevant Rules, it did not absolve the petitioners from complying with the orders passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the Appeals presented by them. The trial court has rightly considered the issue involved in the case and not granted the applications seeking anticipatory bail and cancellation of warrants of arrest issued against them. It is also required to be noted that though the impugned order is dated 2.12.2011 and though the warrants of arrest were issued prior to that date, the petitioners do not appear to have surrendered themselves and have successfully evaded their arrest. In that view of the matter, the present petition does not deserve any consideration and the same deserves to be dismissed. The petition is accordingly dismissed.