This judgment demonstrates a narrowing of the SC/ST Act’s scope, potentially setting a dangerous precedent that could weaken its protective intent.  

The incident and the court’s findings  

According to the prosecution, on January 21, 2011, the second respondent, accompanied by other officials, visited a site to identify encroachments allegedly made by petitioner No. 1, Achal Singh, on public land. During the site measurement, the petitioners reportedly objected to the process and allegedly hurled abusive terms such as “Bhangi,” “Neech,” “Bhikhari,” and “Mangani” at the informant and others. They were also accused of committing physical assault.

“In the case on hand as referred above, the words used were not caste name nor there is allegation that the petitioners were known to the caste of the public servants, who had gone to remove the encroachments. Moreover, it is crystal clear on bare perusal of allegation that the petitioners were not intending to humiliate the…persons for the reason that they were members of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes rather act of the petitioners was in protest against the action of measurements being wrongly done by the public servants“. (Para 12)

Following an investigation, the police determined that the allegations were unfounded and submitted a negative report. However, upon the filing of a Protest Petition, the court took cognisance of the matter, and charges were subsequently framed against the petitioners.

The court, however, found the evidence insufficient to sustain these charges. Justice Kumar noted, “The words used were not caste name[s], nor is there [an] allegation that the petitioners were known to the caste of the public servants.” The court emphasised that the police investigation had already dismissed the allegations as untrue, with no independent witnesses to corroborate the complainant’s account. Furthermore, the court observed that the altercation arose from the accused’s dissatisfaction with the officials’ actions and not from caste-based animosity.  

“Learned counsel contends that there is no iota of evidence that the petitioners had knowledge about the caste of the informant and others. There is no material that the incident took place in the public view. Only the prosecution party are witnesses of the incident. Learned counsel next contends that it is a case of flagrant abuse of the provisions of law because the incident did not take place for the reason that petitioners were intending to humiliate the informant and others for their being members of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes rather the incident took place for unfair measurements to decide any encroachment allegedly made by the petitioners.” (Para 8)

The decision also drew upon the Supreme Court’s precedent in Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., where similar charges were dismissed due to the absence of public witnesses and the lack of direct caste references. The court ruled that the essential ingredients of intent to humiliate and public view, as required by the SC/ST Act, were not met in this case.  

The role of intent and context in caste-based abuse  

Central to the court’s judgment was its reliance on the absence of intent to humiliate the complainant based on caste. The accused contended that their frustration with alleged procedural irregularities in land measurement led to the altercation, and the court accepted this explanation. However, this approach fails to account for the socio-cultural significance of the language used.  

Terms like “Bhangi” and “Neech,” though not explicit caste names, are loaded with casteist connotations and have historically been used to demean and marginalise Dalits. Their use in any context perpetuates caste hierarchies and reinforces systemic discrimination, regardless of the alleged intent. By focusing narrowly on the intent of the accused, the court overlooked the broader impact of such language on the complainant’s dignity and the collective trauma of marginalised communities.  

This reasoning risks creating a dangerous precedent, where the use of casteist slurs may be excused as long as intent cannot be conclusively proven. Such an interpretation undermines the SC/ST Act’s purpose of addressing the structural and often covert nature of caste oppression.  

Narrow interpretation of “Public View”  

Another critical aspect of the judgment was its reliance on the absence of independent witnesses to dismiss the charges. The court interpreted the SC/ST Act’s requirement of “public view” to mean that the incident must have been witnessed by uninvolved third parties. Justice Kumar noted, “Only the informant and its officials are witnesses of the incident; no independent witness has turned up to support [the claims].”  

This interpretation reflects a restrictive and problematic view of public view. Many acts of caste-based abuse occur in semi-public spaces, where independent witnesses may be unwilling to come forward due to fear of retaliation or societal pressures. In such contexts, requiring independent corroboration places an unfair evidentiary burden on the victim, discouraging them from seeking justice.  

The problematic role of police investigations  

The court’s heavy reliance on the findings of the police investigation raises further concerns. The police had earlier dismissed the allegations as baseless, but their report was challenged by the complainant, leading to charges being framed. Justice Kumar’s acceptance of the police report as conclusive evidence overlooks systemic issues within law enforcement, where caste-based atrocities are often underreported or trivialised.  

The SC/ST Act was enacted precisely because of the entrenched biases within the criminal justice system, which often fail to address the grievances of marginalised communities. By leaning heavily on the police investigation without critically examining its methodology or potential biases, the court risked undermining the Act’s protective framework.  

Implications for the SC/ST Act  

The dismissal of charges under the SC/ST Act in this case reflects a broader trend of judicial interpretations narrowing the scope of the law. While the Act was designed to protect vulnerable communities from systemic discrimination, judgments like this one demonstrate how procedural hurdles and technicalities can erode its efficacy.  

By focusing on the absence of intent and public witnesses, the court’s decision risks emboldening those who perpetuate casteist behaviour. It also sends a discouraging message to victims, who may perceive the legal system as being indifferent to their lived experiences of discrimination.  

At a time when caste-based atrocities are on the rise, as evidenced by increasing reports from across India, the SC/ST Act’s robust enforcement is critical. Diluting its provisions through narrow interpretations not only weakens its deterrent effect but also undermines the broader fight for social justice and equality.  

The judgment underscores the urgent need for a more contextual and empathetic approach to cases involving caste-based discrimination. While procedural safeguards are necessary to ensure fairness, they should not come at the cost of justice for victims of systemic oppression. Courts must recognise that casteist abuse often occurs in subtle and insidious ways that do not always align neatly with rigid legal definitions.  

A broader interpretation of terms like “public view” and a more nuanced understanding of the socio-cultural impact of casteist language would better serve the SC/ST Act’s intent. Such an approach would not only uphold the law’s protective spirit but also affirm the judiciary’s commitment to safeguarding the dignity and rights of marginalised communities.  

In conclusion, while the Rajasthan High Court’s judgment raises troubling questions about its implications for caste justice. Moving forward, it is imperative that courts adopt a more comprehensive framework that balances procedural integrity with the broader goals of equality and social justice. Only then can the SC/ST Act remain a meaningful tool in the fight against caste-based atrocities.  

The complete judgment can be read here:

Related:

‘We are considered servants, not humans’: Women of Jai Bhim Nagar reveal the violence of domestic work

10 newborn innocents killed in Jhansi’s medical college, UP govt orders three-tier probe, faces criticism for negligence

BJP Jharkhand manifesto splashes 23 pictures of Modi, neglects party’s Adivasi faces

The post Rajasthan HC finds no caste intent in words like ‘Bhangi’, ‘Neech’, ‘Bhikhari’, ‘Mangani’, drops SC/ST Act charges appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Mewa Ram Jain is a candidate in the upcoming state legislative assembly elections, the polling for which is to be held on November 25. The ED issued the summons to him on November 20, asking him to appear before it in person on November 22, that is three days before the polls.

In his defence, Jain, in his petition. argued that he was elbow-deep in election campaigning and it would be onerous for him to leave campaigning midway merely to attend the call from the ED.

Jain also contended that it was not discernible from the notice for what purpose his presence was required. It was not even clear whether he had been summoned as a witness or as an accused.

Holding the timing of the summons both inappropriate and questionable, Justice Ali noted that at the least, the petitioner had a right to know the nature of the accusation against him if he was an accused

Further, Justice Ali continued that if Jain had been summoned to depose a statement before the authorities, then he had a right to know for what purposes and in what matter his presence would be required so as to enable him to collect the requisite material in order to leave Barmer only to satisfy the summons of the respondent.

Justice Ali thereafter proceeded to quash the summons while granting liberty to the ED to issue a fresh notice with better particulars for any date after December 3 as by that time the counting for the election would have been completed.

Related:

Essential to maintain detention centres in good condition: Rajasthan High Court

Man allowed to change his name in service register after gender affirmation surgery: Rajasthan HC

The post Rajasthan High Court: ED summons against Congress candidate in the midst of electioneering, quashed appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“While considering an application for grant of bail, a prima-facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to the vital facts of the case brought on record. Due consideration must be given to facts suggestive of the nature of crime, the criminal antecedents of the accused, if any, and the nature of punishment that would follow a conviction vis à vis the offence/s alleged against an accused.” (Para 22)

Facts of the case:

As per the First Information Report (FIR) filed by the brother of the deceased against 4 accused, three of whom are the respondents in the current case, the incident took place on May 18, 2020. The deceased, namely Vikash Panwar, was having an extra marital live-in-relationship with a woman named Nirma since the last three month. Nirma also had a spouse named Shrawan Jani and had two children from the said marriage. Unhappy about the said extra marital live-in-relationship, the parents and parents’ in-law of Nirma had been threatening to kill appellant’s brother, Vikash Panwar.

As per the facts of the case, Budharam and Vikas Vishnoi, Nirma’s brothers, Shrawan Jani, Nirma’s husband and Ram Kishor, Nirma’s brother-in-law were threatening the appellant’s brother by way of calls and WhatsApp messages.

On May 17, 2020, the deceased was found lying on the ground, dead, with blood oozing out from around his ribs by the appellant and his father. It was purported that the four accused named mentioned above had come on two motorcycles and dragged Vikash, shooting at him, causing his death.

It is essential to note that earlier on February 24, 2020, Nirma had filed an FIR against her brother-in-law and parents-in-law for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 376 of the IPC, stating therein that her brother-in-law repeatedly raped her and that she was being subjected to cruelty in her matrimonial household

Charges against the respondents-accused in the current case:

On August 19, 2022, the charge sheet was filed by the Jodhpur police before the Metropolitan Magistrate, including the respondents-accused in the current case. Sections 302 and 120B of the IPC and Section 3 read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act were invoked against the respondents-accused. 

Contentions made by the appellants:

The appellant submitted that the impugned judgment was passed without considering the active involvement of respondents and the heinous nature of the crime where they could face even life imprisonment/death for the murder of the deceased.

He further submitted that bail was granted without any reasoning in an “erroneous and perverse manner” in spite of overwhelming material pointing towards the guilt of the respondents. According to the counsel, enlarging the respondents-accused on bail is contrary to the settled principles of law and judgments

The counsel for the state also submitted that there were eyewitnesses and even CCTV footage where respondents were fleeing the crime scene. The counsel further stated that the High Court overlooked such clear and cogent evidence collected during the course of investigation, which, in the very least would prima-facie point towards the guilt of the respondents- accused and erroneously proceeded to grant them bail.

Contentions made by the respondents-accused:

On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents contended that even if the alleged crimes are of serious nature, they would be entitled to bail if the court believes that they were not involved in the crime’ prima facie’. They submitted that there was no evidence to prove that they hit the deceased and shot him.

They further submitted that when the woman witness turned hostile, they were already in judicial custody. So, it’s impossible that they could’ve influenced the witness.

Supreme Court’s observations on grant of bail:

After hearing both the counsel of the parties, the Supreme Court perused the bail orders passed by the HC which noted “Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant bail to the accused petitioners under Section 439 Cr. P.C” (Para 17)

The bench stated that in the past, the Supreme Court has ruled that an order granting bail in a mechanical manner, without recording reasons, would suffer from the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it illegal. The bench then reiterated the factors to be taken into consideration for bail, namely the seriousness of the offense, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice, the impact of the release of the accused on the prosecution witnesses, and the likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence. 

“This Court has, on several occasions discussed the factors to be considered by a Court while deciding a bail application. The primary considerations which must be placed at balance while deciding the grant of bail are: 

(i) The seriousness of the offence;
(ii) The likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice;
(iii) The impact of release of the accused on the prosecution witnesses;
(iv) Likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence.” (Para 18)

It observed that while the liberty of an individual is important, the courts cannot lose sight of the serious nature of the accusations against an accused. Referring to a recent judgment given in the matter of Manoj Kumar Khokhar v. State of Rajasthan, the Court had held that “an order granting bail to an accused, if passed in a casual and cryptic manner, de hors reasoning which would validate the grant of bail, is liable to be set aside by this Court”. (Para 20)

Supreme Court’s analysis of the Rajasthan HC order:

The court upon perusal of the chargesheet and materials brought on record noted how the deceased was traced, the reconnaissance done by respondents before the incident and the manner of their participation. Based upon this, the Supreme Court bench was convinced that at least prima facie there’s a case pointing towards the guilt of the respondent.

“In the present case, it cannot be said that the accusations against the respondents-accused are prima-facie wholly false, frivolous or vexatious in nature, so as to justify grant of bail. We observe, while not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, that the prosecution has brought on record adequate material that would prima-facie point towards the guilt of the accused.” (Para 24 d)

The Court expressed displeasure at the fact that bail was granted by High Court in a very casual manner without any reasoning. It only relied on the testimony of the woman who turned hostile which is not a consideration for granting bail. It held that not even a single material aspect of the case was considered by HC.

“High Court while passing the impugned orders has not taken into account even a single material aspect of the case. Instead, the High Court referred only to the testimony of one hostile witness in the trial and on the basis thereof, exercised its discretion to grant bail in an erroneous manner. The High Court has lost sight of the aforesaid vital aspects of the case and granted bail to the respondents by passing very cryptic and casual orders, de hors cogent reasoning” observed Justice Nagarathna in the judgment. (Para 25)

The court opined that there is a possibility that respondents may influence witnesses since one of the prosecution witnesses had turned hostile. 

“In the absence of any evidence as to the circumstances under which she turned hostile, we cannot rule out the possibility of the respondents-accused influencing other witnesses, tampering with the evidence, if they continue to remain on bail” (Para 24 e)

Decision of the Supreme Court:

Making the above stated observation, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the Rajasthan HC granted the bail to the respondents and asked the respondents to surrender within two weeks of the order. 

The complete order can be read here:

Related:

From “liable to be prosecuted” to “neither opposing nor supporting bail”: The curious case of Delhi Police

UAPA accused to be granted interim bail if prosecution sanction not granted within specified time: P&H HC

SC warns judicial officers, prosecuting agencies against violating bail orders; threatens action and re-education

Lower court judges hesitant to give bail: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud

More than 1100 days in prison: Gulfisha Fatima awaits bail

‘Scapegoat’, Bail granted to  Muslim woman accused of being Pakistani: Karnataka HC 

The post Bail order cannot be cryptic and casual, needs to be backed by reasons considering vital aspects: Supreme Court appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Pointing to a “botched investigation” caused by “institutional failure”, a division bench of the Rajasthan High Court on Wednesday, March 29, acquitted all four men, earlier sentenced to death in 2019 in the 2008 Jaipur bomb blasts case that killed 71 people and injured 185. In its judgement (read below), the court clearly held that the investigation was “not fair” and observed that “nefarious means” were employed by investigating agencies. On May 13, 2008, nine bombs exploded in eight locations — all in Jaipur’s crowded old city — between 7.20 pm and 7.45 pm. The Indian Mujahideen, then a little-known organisation, claimed responsibility for the attack in an email sent a day later to media organisations. In 2019, the trial court, while convicting the four aforementioned people, had acquitted a fifth accused, Shahbaz Hussain, said his advocate Akhil Chaudhary. The High Court Wednesday also upheld Hussain’s acquittal by the trial court in 2019.

In this significant judgement, the court has specifically directed the Rajasthan Director General of Police (DGP) to act against the errant officers in the investigating team, listing out in detail a series of lapses by it — including “insufficient legal knowledge” and evidence that was not up to the mark. The DGP currently is Umesh Mishra.

Given that this was a case where a crime of a heinous nature had been committed, 71 persons losing their lives and 185 persons sustaining injuries, causing unrest in the lives of every citizen, not just in the city of Jaipur, but all across the country, “the Director General of Rajasthan Police to initiate appropriate Enquiry/Disciplinary Proceedings against the erring officers of the Investigating Team.” [Para 64(8)]

The Rajasthan High Court division bench consisted of Justices Pankaj Bhandari and Sameer Jain acquitted Mohammed Sarvar Azmi, Mohammed Saif, Saifurrehman Ansari and Mohammed Salman by setting aside a 2019 trial court order sentencing them to death. The court observed, explained that the court also ruled that Mohammed Salman was a juvenile at the time of the incident.

Local advocate Syed Saadat Ali, was part of the defence team headed by senior advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan also appeared for the four accused and others. Vibhor Jain, Shivam Sharma, Mayank Sapra and Trideep Pais are among the others who were part of the defence. A trial is currently going on in another case related to the blast, where a live bomb was found that year.

“It is apparent that the investigation was not fair and it appears that nefarious means were employed by the Investigating Agencies, material witnesses required to unfold the events were withheld and apparent manipulations and fabrications have been done during the investigation. We therefore deem it proper, in the interest of society, justice and morality, to direct the Director General of Police, Rajasthan, to initiate appropriate enquiry/disciplinary proceedings against the erring officers of the investigating team,” said the court in its judgement.

“For the reasons stated above, we hold that the Investigation Agency in the given case should be made responsible/accountable for their negligent, cursory and inefficient actions. In the given case, for the reasons stated above, in spite of the case being of heinous nature, 71 persons losing their lives and 185 persons sustaining injuries, causing unrest in the lives of every citizen, not just in the city of Jaipur, but all across the country, we deem it appropriate to direct the Director General of Rajasthan Police to initiate appropriate Enquiry/Disciplinary Proceedings against the erring officers of the Investigating Team,” the court added.

 “This case is a classic example of institutional failure resulting in botched/flawed/shoddy investigation. We fear this isn’t the first case to suffer due to failure of investigation agencies and if things are allowed to continue the way they are, this certainly won’t be the last case in which administration of justice is affected due to shoddy investigation. Therefore, we direct the State, the Chief Secretary in particular, to look into the matter, which is in the larger public interest,” said the court in its judgement.

In its judgement, the court said the investigators lacked the required legal skills as they were not aware about the statutory prerequisites and mandatory requirements.

“They have approached this case in a callous manner i.e. unbecoming of the members of uniformed posts. The approach of the Investigation Agency was plagued by insufficient legal knowledge, lack of proper training and insufficient expertise of investigation procedure, especially on issues like cyber crimes and even basic issues like admissibility of evidence. The failure on the part of the Investigation Agency has frustrated the case of the prosecution and the evidence so recorded is not fulfilling the chain of evidence,” said the court in its judgement.

The Court decisively held that the “investigation was not fair and it appears that nefarious means were employed by the Investigating Agencies, material witnesses required to unfold the events were withheld and apparent manipulations and fabrications have been done during the investigation. We therefore deem it proper, in interest of society, justice and morality, to direct the Director General of Police, Rajasthan, to initiate appropriate enquiry/disciplinary proceedings against the erring officers of the investigating team. (Para 63)

Accountability in Investigation in police long overdue: Justice Sameer Jain

Justice Sameer Jain, went further with additional observations and directions:

Holding that that under Schedule-7 of List-II of the Constitution of India, the police is a subject governed by the State whose primary role is to provide security for the people, to investigate the crime, and to maintain law and order and therefore must be given operational freedom to carry out their role and responsibility”,  Justice Jain held categorically that, “while discharging this important public duty, the police/investigation agency may be held publicly accountable for their poor performance. The police/investigation agency is expected to perform their duty in a very cautious, sincere, devoted, diligent manner in accordance with law as per the statutory mandate and in accordance with settled position of law. It is duty of the police/investigation agency to secure and record the complete evidence, to investigate in a sincere manner, to identify the culprits/accused, frame charges and assist the prosecution. However, in the instant case, the investigation agency has utterly failed to do so. [Para 64 (7)]

Therefore the court concluded that “the investigation was flawed, shoddy and there were lapses on the part of the investigation team (The Apex Court has time and again, more particularly in Gajoo Versus State of Uttarakhand: (2012) 9 SCC 532 and Dayal Singh and Ors. Versus State of Uttaranchal: (2012) 8 SCC 263, held that in criminal case of heinous nature, if the investigation is shoddy/flawed which resulted from a callous, lethargic and negligent approach adopted by investigation agencies, then it will be the duty of the Court to pass appropriate strictures and/or to give appropriate directions as the occurrence of crime is a breach of public right which affects the whole community and is harmful for the society in general)

Hence the Court held that “Investigation Agency in the given case should be made responsible/accountable for their negligent, cursory and inefficient actions.” [Para 64(8)]

Given that this was a case where a crime of a heinous nature had been committed, 71 persons losing their lives and 185 persons sustaining injuries, causing unrest in the lives of every citizen, not just in the city of Jaipur, but all across the country, “the Director General of Rajasthan Police to initiate appropriate Enquiry/Disciplinary Proceedings against the erring officers of the Investigating Team.”

The division bench also drew attention to the celebrated judgment of Prakash Singh and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.: (2006) 8 SCC 1, in which the court had contemplated formation of a ‘Police Complaints Authority’ which has not been adequately constituted in the State of Rajasthan. This case is a classic example of institutional failure resulting in botched/flawed/shoddy investigation. [Para 64(8)]

“We fear this isn’t the first case to suffer due to failure of investigation agencies and if things are allowed to continue the way they are, this certainly won’t be the last case in which administration of justice is affected due to shoddy investigation. Therefore, we direct the State, the Chief Secretary in particular, to look into the matter, which is in the larger public interest. [Para 64(8)]

The first of the 2008 IED blasts took place near Manak Chowk. It was followed by blasts in and around Badi Chaupar, Johari Bazaar, the Sanganeri Gate Hanuman temple, Choti Chaupar, Tripolia Bazar, a police station and the Chandpole Hanuman temple. A live bomb was also found on a bicycle near a shop in front of the Chandpole Ramchandraji temple before being defused.

The court also questioned the credibility of identification parades conducted to identify the accused and highlighted anomalies in evidence such as bills of the cycles purchased.

“Before we conclude, we must place on record the fact that we are not unaware of the degree of agony and frustration that may be caused to the society in general and the families of the victims in particular by the fact that a heinous crime like this goes unpunished but, then law does not permit the Courts to punish the accused on the basis of moral conviction or on suspicion alone,” the court said in the judgement.

Findings in the High Court Judgement

The division bench of the Rajasthan High Court decided the appeals in favour of all convicts holding clearly that the trial court relied on “inadmissible, evidence, relied on relied upon inadmissible evidence, ignored material contradictions.” This is violation of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short “Evidence Act”); Information and Technology Act, 2000 (for short “I&T Act”) and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”),

Background

Facts of the case

A series of explosions took place in the crowded market, places of the walled pink city of Jaipur on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 all within a short span of 20 minutes, resulting into death of 71 persons and injuries to 185 persons. In each of the blast sites, the bombs were planted on brand new bicycles, which were placed at carefully selected crowded market places near temples and police stations. In total eight FIRs were registered, four FIRs were registered at Police Station Kotwali and 4 FIRS were registered at Police Station Manak Chowk. 3. The present appeals pertain to FIR No. 131/2008, Police Station Manak Chowk. The author of the FIR was Om Prakash ASI, PS Manak Chowk, Jaipur. The place of incidence of blast in this FIR is near Maniharo ka khanda, Tripolia Bazaar, Jaipur. (Para 2)

On next day of the incident i.e. May 14, 2008, an email was received by TV Channels and News Agencies India TV and Aaj Tak by which Indian Mujaheedeen Organization took the responsibility (5 of 62) [CRLA-211/2022] of serial bomb blasts in Jaipur. Along with the Email, one video clip was also received, which pertained to bicycle and a bag on that bicycle. In the first part of the Email, there is a mention about the bicycle with frame No.129489, which was placed near Police Station Kotwali at Chhoti Chaupad. The bicycle with the same frame number was seized from the blast site near Police Station, Kotwali in a damaged condition in FIR No.117/2007.

Exactly 4 months after the Jaipur blasts i.e. on 13.09.2008, there were serial bomb blasts at 5 places in Delhi. On 19.9.2008, a Team of Delhi Police Special Cell raided a Batla House Flat in Jamia Nagar in South Delhi following a tip-off that terrorists allegedly involved in the Delhi serial bomb blasts were holed up there. In the operation, two terrorists, Chhota Sajid and Aatif Ameen were killed and one Police Officer, Inspector – Mohan Chand Sharma expired. Accused Mohammad Saif was arrested from the flat. On 02.10.2008 accused Mohammad Saif made a disclosure statement which was recorded by the Delhi Police. Saif admitted his active role in the Jaipur bomb blast case and also named 9 other accused and their direct involvement in planting the bombs at various places in Jaipur. In the disclosure statement, it was mentioned that all these 10 accused had come in groups on 11th May to do reconnaissance “Reki” of the places where they intended to plant bombs and returned on the same day by Ajmer Shatabdi Train. On 12th May, they made bombs at Batla House and on 13th May, they all came to Bikaner House and boarded a Volvo Bus in different groups and returned back on the same day in the evening by Ajmer Shatabdi Train in fake Hindu names. (Para 4)

“The accused-appellants were identified by the persons who sold them the cycles which were used by them to plant bombs in  different places in Jaipur, namely Prakash Sain (PW – 117) has identified Md. Saif, Laxman Jhajhani (PW -115) has identified Sarvar Azmi, Lalit Lakhwani (PW-123) has identified Mohammad Saifurrehman & Rajesh Lakhwani (PW-139) has identified Mohd. Salman. After due investigation, charge-sheet was filed. The trial Court framed charges under Sections 120-B, 302, 307, 326, 324, 427, 121A, 124A, 153A of IPC, Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 read with Section 120-B IPC, Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Sections 3/10, 13, 18, 20, 38 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Section 16(1)A or Section 16(1)A of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 read with Section 120-B of IPC. The accused denied the charges and sought trial, upon which, 156 witnesses, PW-1 to PW-156 were examined; documents ExhibitP1 to Exhibit-P312 were exhibited and Articles 1 to 60 were also exhibited on behalf of the prosecution. (Para 5)

The entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. A disclosure statement dated May 1, 2008 made by Mohammad Saif ostensibly stating that he along with his friend Azmi Azmi purchased the steel balls (in the name of one Rahul Sharma for a science project) from a cycle shop in Jama Masjid, Delhi for making bombs, which were used in bomb blasts in Jaipur. Witnesses who reportedly also identified the accused purchasing the steel balls and later cycles were also part of the prosecution. Thereafter it is the case of the prosecution that they returned to Delhi in Ajmer Shatabdi Train under fake Hindu names of Harsh Yadava, Rajhans, and Ajay Singh & Jitendra Singh. This is established from Reservation Chart of Coach No.C-3.

The prosecution through the Advocate General in the High Court also argued that accused Shahbaz Hussain, who was acquitted by the trial court, needed to be convicted and sentenced to death penalty since was the one who sent mail to India TV and Aaj Tak on 14.05.2008 wherein bicycle frame number was mentioned, thus he was aware of the blasts and was one of the conspirators (Para 15)

Case of the Prosecution

Additional Government Counsel Rekha Madnani, who appeared on behalf of the prosecution, said the state government will file a special leave petition in the Supreme Court against the acquittal. The accused have been protected for six months in this eventuality after they proffered a bail bond of Rs 50,000 each.

Basing its case of circumstantial evidence, the state and prosecution argues that it could not be a coincidence “that four persons came to Jaipur from Delhi along with four others under fake names; that these persons purchased cycles from Kishan Pole Bazar from different shops under the same fake names which they also used for their travel; that after planting bombs, these persons left for Delhi in the same Coach No.C-3 of Ajmer Shatabdi Train again under the same fake names Harsh Yadava, Rajhans, Ajay Singh & Jitendra Singh.” (Paras 6 – 15)

Besides, the fact that the bomb blasts took place within a short span, the fact that all the accused came by Volvo Bus in the morning and left by Shatabdi Train in the evening, the fact that some of the names in the chart of bus travel and in the chart of railway travel are matching with the name of the purchaser mentioned in the bill book, goes to show that the appellants travelled under fake Hindu names on May 13, 2008 purchased the cycles under fake Hindu names and left for Delhi after planting bombs in Jaipur on the same day.

It is contended that the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused appellants as they were involved in serial bomb blasts and their involvement in bomb blasts at different places is revealed from the evidence adduced in trial. (Paras 6 – 15)

Case of the Defence

The eight lawyers led by senior counsel Nitya Ramakrishnan who worked tirelessly in the defence case include Vibhor Jain, Shivam Sharma, Mayank Sapra, Seema Misra, Deeksha Dwivedi, Megha Bahl, Siddharth Satija, Rajat Kumar, Harsh Bora and Tusharika Mattoo. Trideep Paid and Project 39 were also involved. Advocates Ashwath Sitaraman and Ishit Patel were among the team.

The counsel for the accused led by renowned counsel, Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan argued that prosecution has failed to establish as to who was the person, who planted the bomb near Maniharo ka khanda, Tripolia Bazaar, Jaipur. Besides, it was argued that the prosecution has failed to establish any meeting of minds prior to the bomb blasts so as to establish criminal conspiracy. It is further contended that the prosecution has not established beyond reasonable doubt the planting of cycles by the present appellants at different sites in Jaipur. (Para 16)

Further, the defence also contended that the prosecution has failed to establish that the appellants actually came to Jaipur on May 11, 2008 to do a ‘Reki’ and returned on the same day, prepared the bombs at Delhi on May 12, 2008 and has also failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the traveling of accused from Delhi to Jaipur by bus and returning on the same day i.e. 13.05.2008 by Ajmer Shatabdi. Further, it was argued that in the present Sessions Case, there was no charge against the accused with regard to the planting of the bombs at different sites.

Notably, it was argued by the defence that no effort whatsoever was made by the prosecution to ascertain the identity of the persons, who had planted the bomb near at Maniharo ka khanda, Tripolia Bazaar, Jaipur. Even the photographs of the persons who as per the prosecution were killed in a separate incident, the Batla House Encounter were not shown to the sellers of cycles to establish that the cycles were purchased by them. (Para 16)

Loopholes in investigation and prosecution: Defence

Not only have the accused in this case, who had preferred an appeal against being awarded the death penalty been wrongly convicted by the trial court but the main accused in the case has not been apprehended by the police. There was no evidence led to establish that the un-identified accused who had (according to the prosecution) placed the bomb on the cycle near at Maniharo ka khanda, Tripolia Bazaar, Jaipur had any link with Saif, Saifoorrehman, Sarwar Azmi and Salman. It is contended that the case rests on circumstantial evidence. (Para 17). Significantly, the defence also argued that the prosecution had failed to establish that the accused were knowing each other or were having any connection with the SIMI, a banned Organization (Para 21).

The only source of evidence are the disclosure statements made by Saif, Saifoorrehman, Sarwar Azmi and Salman, made in police custody. It is also contended that all the above disclosure statements were made in the police custody. No statement was ever recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate and no fact was discovered from the disclosure statements made by the appellants. The flaw here, according to the defence is that there was no discovery of fact in the disclosure statement since the site of the bomb blasts and the shops from which cycles were purchased, were already in the knowledge of the police and therefore, there was no discovery of fact. No material evidence was placed before the court (Paras 18-19)

The only circumstantial evidence was the test identification parade, that, the defence argued was conducted after a lapse of (12 of 62) [CRLA-211/2022] many months and was not conducted in accordance with Rajasthan Police Rules with the investigating officer being present at the time, affecting its credibility. No specific features of the persons, who purchased the cycles, was given to the Police nor was it stated in the evidence before the Court. Lapses in investigation included the non-examination by the prosecution who had made inquiries about the shops where the cycles were allegedly sold; discrepancies in the sale date also emerged in the prosecution case and the bill books of the sale show discrepancies with the frame numbers of the cycles; (Para 19).

Further, argued the defence, the link between the appellant accused has not been established. Material witnesses such as Rajendra Singh Nain who had investigated the matter initially with regard to the shops from where cycles were sold, the Railway Traveling Ticket Examiner, owner or waiters of Kareem hotel where as per the prosecution version, accused had taken lunch before purchasing the cycle and planting the bombs, employees of Aaj Tak and India TV –all of these — were simply not examined. Neither was A.K. Jain, Police Official, who had received the email was also not examined as witness by the prosecution. Therefore, the failure to produce him leads to an adverse inference against the prosecution (Para 21) several other loopholes were pointed out by the defence.

Related:

Jaipur blast case: Rajasthan HC grants bail to undertrial jailed for 12 years

The post 2008 Jaipur blasts: Rajasthan HC acquits all four who were given death penalty appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Rajasthan High Court has issued a bailable warrant against six persons, who were acquitted in 2019, in connection with the Pehlu Khan lynching matter by an Alwar court. 

Khan was attacked by over 200 Gau Rakshaks or cow vigilantes on suspicion of cow smuggling, while returning from a cattle fair to his village Nuh in Haryana. The 55-year-old succumbed to his injuries 4 days after the attack on April 4, 2017 in a private hospital in Alwar.

The Division Bench of Justices Goverdhan Bardhar and Vijay Bishnoi has ordered, “Admit. Issue bailable warrants against the accused-respondents to secure their presence before this court in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-, returnable within a period of eight weeks.”

The present appeal has been filed by Pehlu Khan’s sons, Irshad and Arif, and their plea has been clubbed with the plea filed by the Rajasthan government against the lower court’s acquittal order.

On August 14, 2019, Additional District Judge Dr. Sarita Swami in Alwar had acquitted six out of the total nine people accused in the Pehlu Khan lynching case. These men are Om Yadav, Hukum Chand Yadav, Sudhir Yadav, Jagmal Yadav, Naveen Sharma and Rahul Saini. The accused were discharged of all charges after being given the “benefit of doubt”. Interestingly, the viral video of the mob lynching was ruled inadmissible by the district court.

After the lynching incident, two FIRs were filed: one against the violent mob for grievously beating Pehlu Khan, and second against Khan himself, his two sons and the truck driver for allegedly transporting cattle (cow) illegally out of the state. 

During the horrific assault, Khan had tried to produce the paper work from civic authorities that stated that the cows were purchased for milk production and not for slaughter. But the attackers tore up the documents and mercilessly beat him with sticks. Khan, who was a heart patient, suffered cracked ribs, a bloody nose and even injuries to his eye.

On October 30, 2019, Rajasthan High Court’s Justice Pankaj Bhandari had quashed the chargesheet against Khan, his sons and the driver. He had observed in his order, “There is nothing on record to show that the bovine were being transported for the purpose of slaughtering… Continuation of proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law and would result in grave injustice to petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 who have lost their father in the incident and petitioner No.1 who was merely a driver and was transporting the milching cows and their calves from Rajasthan to the residence of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 at Haryana.” (Khan Mohammed and Ors vs State of Rajasthan, S.B Crl. Misc. Petition No. 5935 of 2019)

This lynching case has been known for its botched-up investigation by the Rajasthan Police, the controversial acquittal order and the impunity with which Pehlu Khan’s sons, their lawyer as well as witnesses were attacked in broad daylight, by men in an unmarked vehicle in September 2018 when they were going to the court to depose. A detailed CJP report about the shoddy investigation and manipulation of the case till now may be read here.

The order dated September 6, 2021 may be read here: 

Related:

The Murder of Pehlu Khan
Pehlu Khan’s Sons, Lawyer and two Case Witnesses attacked!
Pehlu Khan lynching: Rajasthan files appeal before HC
Police file chargesheet against Pehlu Khan, call him Cattle Smuggler
Where is the justice in the Pehlu Khan murder case?

The post Pehlu Khan lynching case: Rajasthan HC issues bailable warrants against 6 accused appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Rajasthan High Court has stressed upon the need to inform convicts of the provisions of parole that can be availed by them as per the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021. The court was dealing with a petition filed by a life convict who had sought parole after 14 years in prison and the court was dismayed to have learnt that it took so long for the convict to seek parole.

This seemingly indicated that the prisoner was not aware of this right to parole that was bestowed upon convicts and thus the court gave specific direction to display the same in prisons so that prisoners are aware of the same.

The bench of Justices Sandeep Mehta and Manoj Kumar Garg was dealing with a petition of convict Rakesh undergoing life imprisonment at the Open Air Camp, Barmer who has undergone more than 14 years of his sentence. He had applied for parole in February which was accepted by the District Parole Advisory Committee with some recommendations. Citing poor family conditions and other impediments as reason, the convict petitioner has forwarded this writ petition from jail praying that the requirement of furnishing surety bonds imposed in the recommendations be relaxed as he has no means to pay surety and continues to languish in custody.

Upon receiving a report about the family condition of the petitioner, it was found that he has no moveable or immoveable property. The court observed that this was a “pathetic state of affairs”, as the convicts after serving 14 years in prison were being considered for parole for the first time. The court then stressed upon the need for a reformative theory of punishment that will ensure convicts’ reintegration into the society.

The court highlighted that as per Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021, every prisoner, who has served a particular part of his sentence (with the maximum being 5 years for life convicts) earns a right to be considered for release on parole. “We have come across numerous cases wherein, the convicts languishing in jails for prolonged periods unable to avail the facility of parole because of poverty/ illiteracy and other trivial thereby, frustrating the spirit of the welfare legislation i.e. the Rules of 2021 (previously Rules of 1958),” the court observed.

The court was disturbed to learn that the petitioner after serving 14 years was being granted parole for the first time, thus it directed the Member Secretary, Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority in coordination with the Director General of Prison to prepare a computerised database of convicts lodged in the prisons all over the State of Rajasthan which may include the broad details viz. date of arrest of the convict; sentence served by him/her; jail punishment, if any; period of abscondence, if any; paroles granted, if any and submit the details by September 14.

The court further directed, “A prominent sign board shall be installed at the entries of all Central Jails in the State of Rajasthan displaying in Hindi the gist of Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021.” The court also cast upon the Superintendent of the prison the duty to inform all eligible prisoners of their right to be considered for being released on parole as soon as their cause becomes ripe.

The court thus waived off the surety and instead imposed a personal bond to the tune of Rs. 1 lakh to the satisfaction of the Superintendent, District Jail, Barmer. The court also directed the petitioner to submit an undertaking to the Superintendent that he shall keep peace and good behaviour during the period of parole and shall not try to abscond failing which, his future opportunities of getting parole/ permanent parole/ staying in the Open Air Camp shall stand forfeited/ curtailed. The court gave the superintendent the liberty to impose other adequate and reasonable conditions to ensure return of the convict to the prison.

This judgement also brought to fore the issue of surety that may be imposed by the district committee considering parole. More often than not, convicts serving their sentences in prisons belong to marginalised communities and cannot afford to find a surety of any amount. Further, there are prisoners who have not been in contact with their families for years either due to their economic condition or due to being lodged in prisons far away from their homes. Thus, finding a surety that will enable them to come out on parole is next to impossible. This probably leads to convicts languishing in prisons even if they are granted parole or it might also discourage some others from applying for parole due to their inability to procure surety for their temporary release. Certainly, surety is being imposed to ensure that a convict returns to prison and does not violate parole conditions. However, the necessity of surety in some cases needs to be reviewed seriously by the concerned authority granting parole, which includes doing an assessment of the convict’s assets as well as assets of his family members and whether they will be able to stand as surety for him.

Parole, as the court stated, is a matter of right for a convict. Certainly, some convicts who have committed much serious offences against the state like terrorism and serious sexual offences or offences like murder are not privy to the freedom that comes with parole. That leaves us with convicts who have committed other kinds of crimes and deserve their chance at reformation and reintegration into society once their complete sentence is concluded. Parole as a concept is from the positivist school of thought and is a correctional process aimed at social rehabilitation. Also, parole proves to be an incentive to a convict who really wishes to transform and reform oneself. This is evident from the provisions of parole that do not allow a subsequent parole if any former parole condition has been violated. This motivates prisoners to be on good behavior and truly transform themselves which is the goal of correctional homes or prisons in the long run.

Thus, it becomes important that prisoners are made aware of such provisions by displaying them in prison premises and such a move is welcome, for being adopted in prisons all across the country.

The complete judgement may be read here:

Related:

Detention order of accused already in custody must justify preventive detention: MP High Court
NIA court failed to take humanitarian approach: Bom HC grants temporary bail to Surendra Gadling
Release remaining Bhima Koregaon accused: CJP writes to Maharashtra CM

The post Inform prisoners about rights, parole provisions: Rajasthan HC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Rajasthan High Court has asked the State Government to explain their reasons for excluding the Pakistani minority migrants for vaccination against Covid-19, despite court orders.

At the last hearing on May 28, the court had granted time to the Additional Advocate General, K.S. Rajpurohit, to furnish details regarding the steps taken by the Government in every District for “Covid-19 Vaccination of Persons without prescribed Identity Cards through CoWIN”. But the Bench of Justices Vijay Bishnoi and Rameshwar Vyas noted that the government failed to file a compliance report in this regard.

The Court observed that after its order on May 28, a letter had been written by the National Health Mission, Medical, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Rajasthan to the Health and Family Welfare Ministry, Government of India requesting them to include the Pakistani minority migrants in the Standard Operating Procedure which deals with “Covid-19 Vaccination of Persons without prescribed Identity Cards through CoWIN.”

To this, the court remarked, “It is noticed that once this Court in its order dated 28.05.2021 has already opined that SOP dated 06.05.2021 is not excluding the Pakistani Minority Migrants, who are eligible for Covid-19 vaccination, then it is difficult to understand that why the State Government is seeking further clarification from the Central Government and requesting it to include the Pakistani Minority Migrants in the SOP dated 06.05.2021.”

The Amicus Curiae in this case, Sajjan Singh, appearing for Pakistani minority migrants, informed the court that even those Pakistani minority migrants, who have been declared as Indian citizens are not getting vaccinated because they don’t have Aadhaar cards. As far as the ration/food packets are concerned, the same are being made available to groups residing only in Jodhpur. In other districts such as Jaisalmer, Barmer and Jaipur, no such ration/food packets are available.

The Bench took cognisance of this and said, “We are forced to direct the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur to submit a detailed affidavit regarding the steps taken by the State Government in every District as per the procedure given in Clause-5 of the SOP dated 06.05.2021 and also to explain that why the State Government is not treating the Pakistani Minority Migrants, who are not having prescribed identity cards, eligible for Covid-19 vaccination though this Court vide order dated 28.05.2021 has already clarified that such Pakistani Minority Migrants are eligible for Covid-19 vaccination as per the SOP dated 06.05.2021.”

The Bench has also asked for a report regarding availability of ration kits. The matter has been listed for hearing on June 10.

The order may be read here: 

Related:

CJP combating Covid-19: Members continue mission to help vulnerable communities
CJP against Covid-19: Volunteers soldier on in Purvanchal
Formulate medical scheme for migrant workers: Delhi HC to gov’t

The post Rajasthan HC asks why Pak minority migrants not given Covid vaccine despite court orders appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Supreme Court has stayed an order by a single-bench of the Rajasthan High Court that restrains police from making arrests in offences where punishment is up to 3 years. The vacation bench of Justices Vineet Saran and BR Gavai stayed the order while hearing a petition filed by the Rajasthan High Court challenging the May 17 order.

The single bench of Justice Pankaj Bhandari had ordered in view of larger public interest that the police, who are involved in other more important task of enforcing the lock-down, may be restrained for the time being from making arrest of the accused persons, who are charged with offence where maximum sentence is upto three years, till July 17, 2021. The court had sought affirmation with regards to this from the Additional Advocate General representing the state who had accepted the same.

The apex court has also stayed operation of another directive of the court whereby the registry was directed to not list bail applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C in offences where maximum sentence extends up to three years, and the offence is triable by First Class Magistrate till reopening of Courts after Summer Vacation.

Senior Advocate Vijay Hansari submitted before the court that the single bench order was problematic and pointed out that the same bench had passed an order to not list bail applications during lockdown, and that order was also stayed by the apex court. The counsel for the state government aligned with the high court’s submissions.

The apex court, thus, issued notice in the petition and in the interim granted stay of the directions issued in para nos. 9, 10 and 11 of the impugned order.

Background

On May 17, the bench of Justice Bhandari was dealing with an anticipatory bail application where the accused was charged under sections 457 (Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking) and 354 (Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) of the Indian penal Code (IPC).

At the outset, the court noted that the court has a huge pendency of bail applications and as many as 5 benches of the court were hearing them. The court also observed that arrest of persons in cases where imprisonment extends upto 3 years and are triable by First Class Magistrate under present circumstances will prove to be counter-productive. “If a person, who is arrested and produced before the Magistrate and thereafter, sent to Jail is an asymptomatic carrier of Covid-19, the inmates may be put at risk,” observed the court.

“Taking note of the above and also in view of larger public interest, this Court is of the view that the police may be restrained for the time being from making arrest of the accused persons, who are charged with offence where maximum sentence is upto three years, till 17th July, 2021. Thus, listing of bail applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C both before Sessions Court as well as High Court will be avoided,” it said.

The order may be read here:

Related:

No arrests in offences with up to 3 years punishment: Rajasthan HC
3 Jhansi junior doctors detained, allegedly manhandled for trying to approach UP CM
Stan takes a stand
Release persons not arrested as per Arnesh Kumar guidelines: MP High Court

The post SC stays Rajasthan HC order restraining arrests in offences with up to 3 years punishment appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Rajasthan High Court has directed the state police to not arrest any person accused of offences which have punishment of up to 3 years, in order to prevent spread of Covid in prisons and also to reduce the burden on police. This order has been made operational until July 17.

The bench of Justice Pankaj Bhandari was dealing with an anticipatory bail application where the accused was charged under sections 457 (Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking) and 354 (Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) of the Indian penal Code (IPC).

At the outset, the court noted that the court has a huge pendency of bail applications and as many as 5 benches of the court were hearing them. The court recognised that the police have the powers to arrest persons accused of cognisable and non-bailable offences. The court had presented a query to the Additional Advocate General asking whether the police, who are involved in other more important task of enforcing the lock-down, be directed not to arrest an accused charged with offence punishable with a term, which may extend upto 3 years till July 17. The AAG responded in the affirmative.

The court also observed that arrest of persons in cases where imprisonment extends upto 3 years and are triable by First Class Magistrate under present circumstances will prove to be counter-productive. “If a person, who is arrested and produced before the Magistrate and thereafter, sent to Jail is an asymptomatic carrier of Covid-19, the inmates may be put at risk,” observed the court.

The court ordered thus,

“Taking note of the above and also in view of larger public interest, this Court is of the view that the police may be restrained for the time being from making arrest of the accused persons, who are charged with offence where maximum sentence is upto three years, till 17th July, 2021. Thus, listing of bail applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C both before Sessions Court as well as High Court will be avoided.”

At the request of the AAG, the court directed the Director general of Police (DGP) to issue instructions to all officers in police stations to not make such arrests until July 17. The court also directed the registry to not list bail applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C in offences where maximum sentence extends up to three years and the offence is triable by First Class Magistrate till reopening of Courts after Summer Vacation.

The complete order may be read here:

Related:

Bombay HC sets up video call with Father Stan Swamy on May 21
Bombay High Court to hear plea for release of Hany Babu for urgent medical care
Gauhati HC seeks info on female declared foreigners and their children in Detention Camps

The post No arrests in offences with up to 3 years punishment: Rajasthan HC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Rajasthan High Court has directed the Registrar (Vigilance) to place the order before the concerned committee “to decide what course of action is required to be done as against such Magistrate.” The Magistrate had issued arrest warrants against an accused, despite the fact that the High Court had earlier granted them Anticipatory Bail.

In Nanuram Saini and ors v State of Rajasthan (Crl. Misc. [Petition] No. 4317 of 2020), the petitioners were represented by Mr. Pawan Sharma and Vidhut Kumar Gupta. The respondent State was represented by Public Prosecutor Ramesh Choudhary.

The court said, “The action of the learned Magistrate is clearly wanting and shows scant respect to the High Court’s order as well as having little knowledge relating to criminal law.”

The Single Bench also quashed the order dated September 3, 2020 so far as the issue of arrest warrant and rejecting the application under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. was concerned and held that the “petitioners shall be treated as entitled to all the benefits as granted by the High Court under the anticipatory bail.”

Section 70(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that every warrant of arrest shall remain in force until it is cancelled by the Court which issued it, or until it is executed.

Background

The petitioners were granted anticipatory bail by the High Court of Rajasthan in 2003 with the condition that in the event of arresting the petitioners, they shall be released on bail. But the Magistrate issued arrest warrants against the two allegedly involved in house trespassing, cheating, forgery, criminal conspiracy under the Indian Penal Code in September 2020.

The petitioners had submitted that on coming to know about the arrest warrants, they moved an application informing the Magistrate that they are on anticipatory bail by the High Court and also requested that the arrest warrants should be converted into bailable warrants in terms of Section 70(2) Cr.P.C.

However, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate via its order dated September 3, 2020 refused to convert the non bailable warrants to bailable warrants on the premise that he does not have the power to convert the non-bailable warrants to bailable warrants as it would amount to refuse to recall its earlier order, which is barred in terms of Section 362 Cr.P.C. and he further issued arrest warrants on the same day.

Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down that no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.

The counsel of petitioners also referred to a Five Judge Bench decision in Sushila Agarwal & Others Versus State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr (SLP [CrL.] No. 7281-7282 of 2017) that held that the anticipatory bail granted by the Court shall continue till the end of the trial.

Court’s observation

The Single Bench of Justice SP Sharma took cognisance of the submissions made by the petitioners and said that the action of the Magistrate is “in clear violation of the orders passed by the High Court after having granted anticipatory bail.”

“There was no occasion for the learned Magistrate to have issued the arrest warrants and such course or power was not available with it in spite of having been given to it. Learned Magistrate has insisted on issuing of the arrest warrants and it is also seen that the provisions of Section 362 Cr.P.C. cannot come into operation while deciding the application under Section 70 (2) Cr.P.C”, added the order.

Accordingly, he allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition and disposed of all pending applications.

The order may be read here:

Related:

YouTuber assault case: Kerala HC grants pre arrest bail to three women
SC extends power to grant anticipatory bail till completion of trial

The post Magistrate reprimanded for issuing arrest warrant despite HC’s anticipatory bail order appeared first on SabrangIndia.