In bail application, the High Court of J & K allowed release on personal bond, criticizing the Sessions Judge for approving a false case under IPC 420/414 that lacked theft allegations against the accused's possession of SIM cards.
Petitioner released on bail on personal recognizance bond of Rs. 500/ without sureties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.32755 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -48 Year- 2014 Thana -NTPC KHAIRA District- AURANGABAD ====================================================== 1. Chandrajeet Kumar son of Satendra Thakur village Kerka P.S. N.T.P.C. Khaira District - Aurangabad
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus 1. The State of Bihar
.... .... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bindeshwar Prasad Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dr.Kumar Uday Pratap (App)
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE DHARNIDHAR JHA ORAL ORDER
After having gone through the written report of the Probationary Sub. Inspector of Police Arvind Kumar, it appears admitted that the petitioner was dealing in different SIM cards of various service providers in the telephonic communication field. Many SIM cards of such service providers were recovered from possession of the petitioner and on that basis case has been registered under sections 420 and 414 of the I.P.C.
This Court simply could not come to terms as to how a false case could be instituted for the offences under sections 420 and 414 of the I.P.C when admittedly non of the articles recovered
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.32755 of 2014 (2) dt.24-09-2014
2
from the possession of the petitioner was either theft property not it is a case for applying section 420 of the I.P.C.
Accordingly, let the above named petitioner be released on bail on furnishing personal recognizance bond of Rs. 500/(five hundred) without any sureties to the satisfaction of C.J.M. Aurangabad in N.T.P.C. Khaira P.S. Case No. 48 of 2014.
Before parting with the order, I want to put on record that under the facts of the case the prayer for bail has been dismissed by the highest criminal court of the Sessions Division, i.e., the Court of Sessions. It is simply intriguing and tragic to find that the Officer heading the Judgeship was not appreciating the facts so as to finding out as to whether the sections of offences under which the F.I.R. had been lodged were duly attracted. Powers have been vested under the Cr.P.C. in various courts for granting relief; powers are never meant to torture the citizens of India who have the guaranteed right under the Constitution of India to carry out vocation, trade and business of their choice. The learned Sessions Judge ought to have appreciated that he is expected to administer justice and not supposed to heap injustice. The order which he was passing was simply doing injustice by putting the seal of approval over the lodging of a false accusation which was a case of encroaching upon the fundamental rights of a
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.32755 of 2014 (2) dt.24-09-2014
3
citizen.
Let the order be communicated to the Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, who had passed order dated 15.7.2014 in B.P. No. 465 of 2014. (Dharnidhar Jha, J) Abhay/U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be released on bail in a case involving alleged dealing in SIM cards where offences were arbitrarily invoked.
Whether the Sessions Judge erred in refusing bail given the nature of the charges and recited facts.
Chandrajeet Kumar
State of Bihar
DHARNIDHAR JHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
