Prithavi Narayan Singh vs State Of Bihar & Anr

Leave granted.

In its order dated 02.02.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna, a submission was recorded that the appellant was ready to deposit the entire amount of Rs.47,96,000/- within reasonable time. Accordingly, following directions were passed by the High Court:

"In view of the aforesaid submission, the petitioner is directed to deposit an amount of Rs.2,96,000/- as first instalment on or before 3rd March, 2017 in the court below itself and on such deposit learned court below will enlarge the petitioner on provisional bail with condition that he will go on to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.45,000,00/- in nine equal instalments of Rs.5,000,00/-each on or before 15th of each month starting from April, 2017 and on failure to deposit any of the instalments, his bail bond shall be cancelled and when full amount is deposited the learned court below will confirm the bail of the petitioner."

Pursuant to an application for modification of the order filed by the appellant, the directions were modified on 23.08.2017 as under:

"This application has been filed for modification of the order dated 02.02.2017 passed earlier by this Court in Cr. Misc. No.609/17 whereby the petitioner was directed to be released from custody upon deposit of Rs.47,96,000/- due upon him as also the petitioner was directed to be released on provisional bail subject to deposit of Rs.2,96,000/- on or before 3rd March, 2017.

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he was unable to arrange for Rs.2,96,000/-, he could not be released even on provisional bail and languishing in jail custody since 19.10.2016. Learned counsel further prays that by way of modification the petitioner be directed to sell the properly pledged with the BSFC and deposit the amount due against him."

The matters concerning various Millers had come up before this Court and while disposing of the entire group of matters by order dated 13.08.2018, this Court had passed following directions:

"19. We now come to the last submission made by Mr. Ranjit Kumar,learned Senior Advocate. The idea behind requirement of furnishing bank guarantee and or pledge of unencumbered property was to ensure sufficient security in the hands of the Corporation. Going by the terms of the agreement, in case there be any failure on part of the concerned miller to discharge his obligations, the Corporation would certainly be entitled and justified to take appropriate steps to secure its interest either by encashing the bank guarantee and or by disposing the pledged properties in accordance with law. We therefore accept the submission and hold that the Corporation,in such cases, would be well within its rights to take appropriate steps in the concerned matters.

In the circumstances we direct:-

a) The expression "Bank Guarantee" used in condition No.1 as stipulated in order dated 28.02.2017 passed by this Court pertains to bank guarantee which the concerned miller was obliged, in terms of the agreement in question to furnish. The obligation to furnish the bank guarantee and to keep it alive is referable to the terms of the agreement and not to the "defalcated sum" as was submitted by the Corporation.

b) If on account of failure to submit and to keep it alive in respect of the "defalcated sum", any benefit of bail/anticipatory bail was withdrawn and orders of non-bailable warrants were issued, such orders stand cancelled and recalled. However the concerned millers ought to have furnished and kept alive bank guarantees as contemplated in terms of the agreement. If there be any failure on this count the cancellation of bail/anticipatory bail was perfectly justified.

c) The order dated 28.02.2017 passed by this Court would apply to every single case, irrespective whether the concerned miller was a party to the proceedings before this Court or not.

d) If any miller, in terms of the order dated 28.02.2017, had not furnished bank guarantee or had not kept it alive in terms of his obligations under the agreement, the facility of bail/anticipatory bail would not be available to him. The orders cancelling such facility stand confirmed and the challenge in that behalf is negated. All such millers shall be immediately taken in custody by the concerned Police.

e) We permit the Corporation to secure its interest either by invoking the bank guarantees wherever furnished and or by putting to auction the unencumbered immovable property pledged by the millers with it, after due process of law."

After the issuance of aforesaid directions by this Court, the appellant moved yet another application seeking modification of the order claiming benefit under the directions passed by this Court.

However, the request was turned down which order is presently under challenge before us.

It is accepted by the learned counsel for the State and the Corporation that the benefit in terms of the aforesaid directions in para 20 of order dated 13.08.2018 would normally have been available to the appellant except for the fact that there was a separate and specific direction issued in his matter by the High Court.

In the circumstances, we declare the appellant to be entitled to the benefit of the order dated 13.08.2018 despite there having been a separate and specific order in his matter.

The order passed by the High Court shall be taken to have been modified as a result of directions passed by this Court on 13.08.2018.

Needless to say that the authorities in terms of para 19 of the said order dated 13.08.2018 shall be entitled to secure their interest in the manner indicated therein.

The appeal stands allowed in aforesaid terms. No costs.