Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a bail application filed by the applicant for the alleged offences involving taking vehicles on rent, mortgaging them, and absconding with the money, a single-judge bench of G. S. Ahluwalia, J., dismissed the bail application, however, permitted the applicant to renew his bail application after the co-accused surrenders or may seek a separation of the trial from the absconding co-accused. The Court further directed the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bhopal to conduct an enquiry into the trial court’s conduct regarding ‘blindly signing’ the wrong order sheets written by the clerk.
In the instant matter, the applicant filed a fourth application for bail under Section 439 of CrPC. The applicant has been in jail since 06-10-2023 and has previously applied for bail three times, with the third application being rejected. The applicant was arrested on 06-10-2023 in connection with FIR registered at Police Station Nishatpura, District Bhopal for offenses under IPC. The allegation against the applicant involves taking vehicles on rent, mortgaging them, and absconding with the money. The charge sheet was filed on 05-12-2023.
The trial court’s order sheets reveal delays and discrepancies, including continuous adjournments for framing of charges, missing or incorrect order sheets which seem to have been handwritten by a clerk rather than typed and discrepancies in issuing summons to witnesses. There were delays in the trial due to repeated adjournments requested by the counsel for the accused on the question of framing charges. The trial court mistakenly fixed dates for recording evidence instead of arguments for framing charges on several occasions.
The Court noted that the case was fixed for 27-06-2024 and on the said date one of the co-accused went absconding and his bail bonds have been cancelled and arrest warrant has been issued. The Court found that there was no delay on the part of the prosecution and the delays were caused by the defense counsel’s repeated requests for adjournments and even the co-accused has absconded.
The Court noted that the trial court mistakenly fixed dates for recording evidence instead of arguments for framing charges on several occasions. The Court noted that the order sheets dated 24-02-2024, 09-03-2024 and 23-03-2024 are handwritten, whereas the other order sheets are typed. The Court noted that there was confusion in the trial court regarding the correct procedural steps, particularly the handwritten order sheets which led to unnecessary delays. The Court noted that “whatever order sheets were dictated by the trial Court were duly typed but it appears that order sheets dated 24-02-2024, 09-03-2024 and 23-03-2024 were written by the clerk, which were blindly signed by the trial Court.”
The Court directed the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bhopal, to conduct an enquiry into the circumstances under which the handwritten order sheets were produced and signed by the trial court and if found negligent, the matter is to be reported to the Chief Justice for administrative action, and departmental proceedings should be initiated against the responsible clerk. The Court stated that the entire proceeding of the inquiry is to be concluded within two months from the date of the order.
The Court dismissed the application for bail due to the nature of the allegations, the applicant’s role as the mastermind in the alleged offence, and the fact that the delay was partly due to the defense counsel’s actions. However, the Court granted liberty to the applicant to revive the bail application after the co-accused surrenders. The Court also permitted the applicant that the applicant may seek a separation of trial from the absconding co-accused.
[Ranjeet Singh Johal v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine MP 5048, Decided on 24-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Shri Shafiqullah, Counsel for the Applicant
Shri K.S. Baghel, Public Prosecutor, Counsel for the Respondents/State
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
