Full Judgment
B.J. Shethna, J.
1. Mr. K.K. Shah for Mr. Pradeep Shah for the respondents-accused prays for time on the ground that Mr. Pradeep Shah was out of station. This request was made in the morning also. It was refused though other cases wherein Mr. Pradeep Shah was appearing time was granted in all the matter as in this matter sufficient opportunities were given earlier, and, the accused were wrongly enjoying the bail.
2. In the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan against the order of acquittal dated 24.10.1996 passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Balortra acquitting the respondents-accused for the serious offences under Sections 307 and 498A, I.P.C. this Court granted leave to appeal and admitted the appeal against the order of acquittal. Bailable warrant in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with, one surety of the like amount was issued against respondent-accused No. 1 Smt. Oaki Devi. However, non-bailable warrants were ordered to be issued against warrants were ordered to be issued against respondents-accused No. 2 Durga Ram and respondent-accused No. 3 Pukh Raj. It was made clear that on their arrest they shall be produced before this Court immediately. It was also stated that they may move an application for bail before this Court only after they produce themselves before the Court. Mr. K.K. Shah learned Counsel for the respondents-accused pointed out from the notice issued by this Court against respondents-accused wherein there was no reference about the bailable warrant issued against respondent-accused No. 1 and non-bailable warrants issued against respondents-accused No. 2 and 3. He, therefore, submitted that the accused filed Misc. Bail Application No. 149/97 in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 117/97 which should have been placed before this Court in ordinary course as per the prevailing practice and rules. However, it was placed before Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.S. Godara. In para No. 2 of that bail application the accused have clearly stated that. 'This Hon'ble Court, while admitting the appeal of the State, issued non-bailable warrant against the applications for their arrest and production before this Hon'ble Court and against Smt. Uki, this Hon'ble Court issued bailable warrant for her presence before this Hon'ble Court.' On 22.41997, after hearing Shri Shambhoo Singh, learned Counsel hearing Shri Shambhoo Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri S.K. Vyas, P.P. Hon'ble Mr. A.S. Godara, J. ordered that the petitioners Durga Ram and Pukhraj be enlarged on bail and their sentence shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal provided they furnish bail bonds in the sums of Rs. 5,000/- each to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) for their appearance in the main appeal before this court on 20.5.1997. Accordingly, they remained present before the Court and furnished the bail-bonds.
3. This application was filed by the original complainant Ram Lai for cancellation of bail order passed by this Court (by Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.S. Godara) in Criminal Misc. Bail Appln. No. 149/97 moved in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 117/97. On 25.7.1997, the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) was directed to enquire into the matter as to why no compliance of the order dated 28.2.1997 passed by this Court (by Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.J. Shethna) was made and instead S.B. Criminal Misc. Appeal No. 149/97 was listed before his Lordship instead of the Bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.J. Shethna.
4. In my opinion, not complying with the order passed by the Court is nothing but contempt which is required to be viewed very seriously. However, suffice it to say that the way in which and the manner in which the bail application No. 149/97 was moved by the present respondents-accused and obtained the order of bail instead of surrendering is sufficient to cancel the bail obtained by them on 22.4.1997. It is well settled principle that if the parties do not come with clean hands then they are not entitled to any relief. If the parties have obtained any favorable order in their favour by adopting such tactics then such order of bail is required to be cancelled.
5. This Court while admitting the appeal against the order of acquittal ordered to issue bailable warrant against respondent accused No. 1 Smt. Ooki Devi. She has already furnished bail-bonds of Rs. 5,000/-. Considering the fact that she is a lady and that bailable warrant was issued against her, therefore, this Court would not like to cancel her bail. However, the bail obtained by respondents-accused No. 2 Durga Ram and No. 3 Pukh Raj is required to be cancelled.
6. Accordingly, this application is partly allowed against respondents-accused No. 2 Durga Ram and No. 3 Pukh Raj. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. They shall surrender to custody forthwith failing which fresh non-bailable warrants of arrest be issued against them.