BABU T. Vs. BYJU SEBASTIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application submitted by the defacto complainant, who is impleaded as additional 3rd respondent in this bail application. The aforesaid bail application was disposed of by this Court as per order dtd. 29/4/2022. The bail application was submitted by the petitioners, who are the accused in crime No.1308/2021 of Ranni Police Station, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sec. 506 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Ss. 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

(2.) In this case, even though initially, the bail application was filed without impleading the defacto complainant, subsequently, an application was filed to that effect and the same was allowed and accordingly, he was impleaded as the 3rd respondent. On 19/4/2022, when the matter came up for consideration, this Court passed an order directing the Station House Officer, Ranni Police Station to serve notice on the additional 3rd respondent and the matter was directed to be posted after service of notice. Even though, no subsequent posting date is seen recorded in the proceeding sheet of this case, but in the history of the case hearing as uploaded in the official website of this Court, the next posting date is shown as 20/5/2022. It is evident from the endorsement made the proceeding sheet of the bail application that, the order dtd. 19/4/2022 was communicated to the Public Prosecutor on 21/4/2022. It is seen that, the case was again came up on 26/4/2022, and from that date the matter was posted to 29/4/2022. On 29/4/2022, the bail application was disposed of. The specific case of the 3rd respondent is that, the application was disposed of without notice to them and therefore the same is a nullity.

(3.) The application to recall the said order was submitted in such circumstances. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the decision rendered by this Court in Pushpangathan v. State of Kerala [2015 (3) KLT 105] and Babu @ Achayan v. Thankachan [2022 (2) KLT 394] to support the contention that, this Court is well within its powers to recall the order passed by invoking the power under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. when it is found that, the order was passed without giving an opportunity of being heard to a party affected and thus an order passed in violation of principles of natural justice.