Bhola Ram vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 07.11.2019 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Sessions Court') in Criminal Bail Application No.2334/2019 (in connection of arrest of petitioner in the FIR No.341/2017 of Police Station Udaimandir, District Jodhpur City East), whereby the Sessions Court has allowed the bail application of the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and ordered for releasing him on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- along with one surety of likewise amount and on certain conditions. The Sessions Court has further directed the petitioner to get the registered sale-deed executed in favour of the complainant within a period of 15 days from passing of the order. It is also observed by the Sessions Court that if the petitioner fails to get the registered sale-deed executed in favour of the complainant, the complainant has right to move application seeking cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Sessions Court has erred in imposing the condition of getting register sale-deed executed in favour of the complainant within a period of 15 days from passing of the order impugned. It is submitted that in the impugned order, the Sessions Court has wrongly mentioned that the matter has been compromised between the parties and the petitioner is ready to get registered sale-deed executed in favour of the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, prayed that the condition for getting the registered sale-deed executed in favour of the complainant imposed by the Sessions Court be deleted from the impugned order.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner had not instructed his brother Tulchharam to give such statement before the Sessions Court and his brother gave wrong statement before the Sessions Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pressed upon the Ground Nos.B, C, D and E raised in this criminal misc. petition, however, I am not inclined to consider the same because no such arguments were raised by the petitioner before the Sessions Court.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order.

In connection with the FIR No.314/2019 of Police Station Udaimandir, District Jodhpur City East, the petitioner was arrested by the police and thereafter on his behalf a bail application was filed under Section 437 Cr.P.C. before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.6, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur and the same was dismissed vide order dated 05.11.2019. Being aggrieved with the order dated 05.11.2019, bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was preferred on behalf of the petitioner before the Sessions Court. The counsel appearing for the petitioner, before the Sessions Court, made a categorical statement that the compromise has been arrived between the parties and as per the said compromise, the petitioner would get the registered sale-deed executed in favour of the complainant in relation to the land in question within a period of 15 days. In the order impugned, it is also mentioned that one Tulchharam, who happened to be real brother of the petitioner and has named as co-accused in the above mentioned FIR, is present on behalf of the petitioner and admitted that the matter has been compromised between the parties and as per the said compromise, the registered sale-deed of land in question will be executed in favour of the complainant and the parties will be bound by the terms of the compromise. The counsels appearing for the petitioner and the complainant, before the Sessions Court, had also specifically admitted that the compromise has been arrived at between the parties in the above referred terms.

Taking into consideration the fact that the case against the petitioner is triable by Magistrate and the matter has been compromised between the parties, the Sessions Court has granted bail to the petitioner, as referred above, on the condition by which the petitioner is aggrieved.

In this criminal misc. petition, the petitioner has nowhere averred that he has never instructed his brother to give a statement before the Sessions Court that the matter has been compromised between the parties and as per said compromise, the petitioner will get the sale-deed executed in favour of the complainant within 15 days. It is also not averred in this criminal misc. petition that the counsel, who appeared on behalf of the petitioner before the Sessions Court, has also made such statement before the Sessions Court without any instruction on behalf of the petitioner. It is also noticed that the counsel, who appeared on behalf of the petitioner before the Sessions Court, has not filed this criminal misc. petition.

It appears that for the purpose of getting bail from the Sessions Court, the statement was given on behalf of the petitioner that as per the compromise, the petitioner is ready to get the registered sale-deed executed in favour of the complainant, however, after getting bail on the said ground, the petitioner deliberately with the intention to flout the condition of the bail has filed this criminal misc. petition challenging the order passed by the Sessions Court. Such a practice adopted by an accused cannot be recognized. Had the petitioner been aggrieved with the said conditions, stipulated by the Sessions Court while granting bail to him in the order impugned, he was free to move application before it seeking modification of the condition of the bail, which he did not opt and filed this criminal misc. petition challenging the said order. This fact is sufficient to assume that the petitioner is having knowledge that if he would move application for modification of the order, he might not get the favourable order from the Sessions Court. The above mentioned conduct of the petitioner is a brazen attempt on his behalf to undermine the authority of courts and nothing but abuse of process of court which cannot be allowed in any circumstances.

Hence, this criminal misc. petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed with the cost of Rs.50,000/-. The petitioner is directed to deposit the said cost before the District Legal Service Authority, Jodhpur within a period of one month from today. If the aforesaid cost is not deposited by the petitioner, the District Legal Service Authority, Jodhpur shall bring it into the notice of this Court.

Stay petition also stands dismissed.