Jasveer Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan

Jasveer Singh vs State of Rajasthan

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Rajasthan Decided Feb 10, 2009

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/760644

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/760644
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: Mahesh Bhagwati, J.
Decided On: Feb 10, 2009
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ] Determination as to Juvenile - Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged oc...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jasveer Singh

Respondent

State of Rajasthan

Legal References

Reported In: RLW2009(3)Raj1945

Excerpt

- section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - in the instant case also, the accused has failed to comply with the conditions of the bail bonds and he absented himself on 16th may, 2008, the date so fixed for pronouncement of judgment. that too, when he has failed to comply with the conditions of the bail bonds for his appearance furnished before the court......after hearing of final arguments of the parties, the judgment was to be pronounced by the court, the arguments concluded on 3rd may, 2008 and judgment was to be pronounced on 16th may, 2008 but since then he has been absconding. i am afraid that the provisions of section 438 of cr.p.c. can be invoked by an accused already facing a trial of the case in the court. in the instant case, the charge of non bailable offence has been framed against the accused and the trial of the case is on the verge of its conclusion. even in the case of bailable offences, sub-section 2 of section 436 of cr.p.c. contemplates that where a person fails to comply with the conditions of bail bonds forfeited in pursuance of bail granted under sub-section 1, the court may refuse to release that accused person on bail when on a subsequent occasion in the same case he appears before the court or is brought in custody and any such refusal shall be without prejudice to the powers of the court. in the instant case also, the accused has failed to comply with the conditions of the bail bonds and he absented himself on 16th may, 2008, the date so fixed for pronouncement of judgment. i am of the firm view that the provisions of section 438 of cr.p.c. are not attracted in a case which is pending trial before the court. that too, when he has failed to comply with the conditions of the bail bonds for his appearance furnished before the court.8. in view of the above legal position, the bail petition filed on behalf of the accused petitioner jasveer singh s/o shri sardar singh under section 438 of cr.p.c. being bereft of merit deserves to be outrightly dismissed and it is dismissed accordingly.

Full Judgment

Mahesh Bhagwati, J.

1. This order governs the disposal of bail application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C by Shri AK Shahdadpuri, Advocate on behalf of the applicant Jasveer Singh pertaining to Criminal Case No. 42/2007 registered in the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act which is pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Kota (South).

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the material on record.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner, on 16th May, 2008, could not appear in the Court on account of his illness and he has been summoned through a Warrant of arrest. Hence, he may be released on anticipatory bail.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail petition.

5. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and carefully scanned the bail order dated 7th January, 2008 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge No. I, Kota, it is noticed that a criminal case has been pending against the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act in the Court of Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Kota (South). It is also found that final arguments of both the parties were heard on 3rd May, 2008 and the case was stood over to 14th May, 2008 for the pronouncement of judgment. There being a holiday on 14th May, 2008 and suspension of work by the Advocates on 15th May, 2008, the case was taken for hearing on 16th May, 2008. The accused did not appear on that date and because of his absence, his bail bonds were forfeited and the petitioner was ordered to be summoned through a warrant of arrest. The petitioner is not found to have substantiated the ground of his illness by any medical certificate. He has been evading his arrest and desires to seek anticipatory bail in a case which is pending trial before the Court.,

6. The Pre Arrest bail provision in the Criminal Procedure Code, inserted to save the innocent from harassment at the hands of Police, is the most abused provision today. It is frequently observed that this discretionary power of the High Courts and Sessions Courts is being repeatedly invoiced by persons accused of heinous offences and even in those cases pending trial before the Court which was not the intent of the relief giving provision.

7. 'A blanket order of bail may amount or result in an invitation to commit an offence or a passport to carry on criminal activities or to afford a shield against any and all types of illegal operations, which, in our judgment can never be allowed in a society governed by rule of law.' The petitioner absented from the Court on a day when after hearing of final arguments of the parties, the judgment was to be pronounced by the Court, the arguments concluded on 3rd May, 2008 and judgment was to be pronounced on 16th May, 2008 but since then he has been absconding. I am afraid that the provisions of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. can be invoked by an accused already facing a trial of the case in the Court. In the instant case, the charge of non bailable offence has been framed against the accused and the trial of the case is on the verge of its conclusion. Even in the case of bailable offences, Sub-section 2 of Section 436 of Cr.P.C. contemplates that where a person fails to comply with the conditions of bail bonds forfeited in pursuance of bail granted under Sub-section 1, the Court may refuse to release that accused person on bail when on a subsequent occasion in the same case he appears before the court or is brought in custody and any such refusal shall be without prejudice to the powers of the Court. In the instant case also, the accused has failed to comply with the conditions of the bail bonds and he absented himself on 16th May, 2008, the date so fixed for pronouncement of judgment. I am of the firm view that the provisions of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. are not attracted in a case which is pending trial before the Court. That too, when he has failed to comply with the conditions of the bail bonds for his appearance furnished before the Court.

8. In view of the above legal position, the bail petition filed on behalf of the accused petitioner Jasveer Singh S/o Shri Sardar Singh under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. being bereft of merit deserves to be outrightly dismissed and it is dismissed accordingly.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 2009 Same Parties Jasveer Singh vs State of Rajasthan Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Mahesh Bhagwati, J.

Criminal