Sethpuri vs State Of Rajasthan

Rajendra Prakash Soni, J

Petitioner herein is impugning an order dated 02.08.2024 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.04, Jodhpur Metro, in Criminal Misc. Case (Suo Moto Bail Cancellation) No.1731/2024, arising out of FIR No.252/2023, Police Station Bhagat Ki Kothi, District Jodhpur for alleged offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B of IPC, whereby his bail was cancelled and arrest warrant issued against him.

Relevant facts from the petition first. The complainant reported that on 21.10.2023, he executed a rent agreement for a truck with the petitioner/accused. However, the accused did not pay the agreed rent and refused to do so when demanded. The complainant then asked for the return of his truck, but the petitioner/accused neither returned the truck nor paid any rent, allegedly seizing the truck intentionally. An FIR was thus registered.

2.1. Following the lodging of this FIR, the police initiated an investigation into the matter and arrested the petitioner/accused, who was presented before the concerned court. The Court subsequently remanded the accused to Central Jail, Jodhpur. 2.2. In the meantime, the police submitted a charge sheet in this case before the learned trial court on 29.07.2024. The learned sessions court then granted bail vide order dated 30.07.2024, and the petitioner was released on bail.

2.3. It turns out that during the interregnum, petitioner had also file a bail petition before this court. Due to a lack of communication between the petitioner's family members and the petitioner's advocate, there was a bona fide communication gap, and the petitioner could not inform the Sessions court that he had already filed a bail application before the High Court, which had been rejected.

2.4. In the premise, the learned sessions court suo moto recalled the petitioner's bail vide an order dated 02.08.2024, stating that the petitioner had concealed the fact that he had filed S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8071/2024, which was rejected by the High Court.

Heard.

At the outset, I am of the view that the learned bail court was correct in forming the opinion that the petitioner had engaged in sharp practice and concealed the fact that his bail petition had been dismissed by the High Court just a day prior.

Bail being a discretionary and equitable relief, it is well-established that the person seeking such relief must approach the court with clean hands.

However, given that the High Court dismissed the bail petition on the ground that the investigation was still pending, but subsequently, the charge sheet seems to have been filed on the same day before the learned trial court, the learned counsel for the petitioner, who was perhaps not aware of the High Court's dismissal of the bail petition, immediately filed a fresh bail application the next day due to the change in circumstances.

Needless to say, since the investigation had already been completed and the charge sheet had been filed, further custodial interrogation of the petitioner was not warranted. Be that as it may, as already observed, the bail was not canceled on this ground but for the reasons already stated in the impugned bail order, with which I am in agreement.

Pertinently, it was equally the duty of prosecution counsel to have sought instructions and apprise the bail court of dismissal the bail petition by this court to fill the gap of miscommunication between petitioner and his High Court counsel. In the peculiar facts and circumstance, instant petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh bail petition before the court which cancelled the bail, and the same shall be decided without being influenced by the earlier bail cancellation order dated 02.08.2024 or the earlier dismissal of the bail petition by this court.

In the meanwhile, to protect the civil liberty of the petitioner, until the filing of his fresh bail petition, no coercive steps shall be taken against him for a period of two weeks. The learned Sessions Court is requested to dispose of the bail petition on the same date, once it is listed for hearing.

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.