SAVITRI GOENKA Vs. KUSUM LATA DAMANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Though many points were urged in respect of the appeal, we find that the impugned order of the High Court cannot be maintained on one ground. Though it had issued notice to the appellant, the matter was disposed of without hearing the appellant. It appears that respondent no.1 had filed the bail application, that is, Criminal Misc. Petition No.2945/2004 on 10.12.2004. The court directed service on the appellant. There is no dispute that there was no service of notice on the appellant. According to the appellant, on learning about the proceedings, Criminal Misc. Application No.4653/05 was filed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.2945/04. The High Court was pleased to issue notice on 14.7.2005 on the said application and the High Court directed the accused to implead the appellant. Learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the bail application of the accused, respondent No.1 on the ground that relief had already been obtained by her from the High Court. On 22.9.2005, without service on the appellant, the High Court converted the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C., to one under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and granted interim protection.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that several facts were suppressed. By giving wrong impression about the factual scenario, the appellant persuaded the High Court to pass the impugned order. In response, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is in fact no infirmity in the order. In any event, the charge sheet has been filed and respondent no.1-accused has already been granted regular bail. A copy of the order passed on the bail application has been filed for records.