MUSHTAQ AHMED Vs. MOLVI HAFIZUR RAHMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) K. N. Sinha, J. By means of the present application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. , the applicant has prayed for quashing of order dated 29-10-2003 passed by the Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. 1), Mau and also prayed for directing the Court below to cancel the bail of opposite party Nos. 1,2 and 3, which has been granted on 27-1-2003 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau in case No. 352/1991 under Sections 406,409,467,468 and 471 IPC police station Kotwali District Mau. It was further prayed that opposite parties Nos. 1, 2 and 3 be directed to surrender before the concerned Court in compliance with the order dated 20-9-2002 and apply for regular bail.

(2.) THE brief facts, giving rise to the present petition, are that applicant was a teacher in Madarsa Faiz- Aam at Mau since 1974. In the year 1985, he proceeded on leave to get higher education in Saudi Arabia and returned back in the year 1988. When he joined his duties, he learnt that in his absence, his salary and allowances for the above period had been drawn by opposite parties Nos. 1, 2 and 3 from the Government fund by forging his signature. Consequently, a complaint No. 352/1991 was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Chief Judicial Magistrate summoned opposite parties as accused by order dated 8-4-1991. THE opposite parties approached this Court by way of application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. , which was allowed and proceedings were quashed. THE applicant then challenged the said order of this Court by filing an appeal before Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Hon'ble the Supreme Court allowed the said appeal by order dated 31-1-1996 and set aside the order of this Court, directing the Magistrate to proceed with the case according to law. THE judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court is Annexure No. 2 to the affidavit. THE opposite parties then filed another petition before this Court for releasing them on personal bond, which was rejected by order dated 26-3-1996, which is Annexure No. 3 to the affidavit. After dismissal of the said writ petition, the opposite parties No. 1,2 and 3 moved their bail application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, which was rejected by order dated 30-3-1996, which is Annexure No. 4 to the affidavit. THE opposite parties then moved their first bail application before the Sessions Judge, Mau on 2-4-1994. THE bail application of Mahfuzur Rahman, Rafiullah and Abdul Hannan was dismissed being not pressed and the bail application of Habibur Rahman was pressed and the same was granted by order dated 6-4-1996, which is Annexure No. 5 to the affidavit. THE opposite parties No. 1,2 and 3 moved their second bail application before the Sessions Judge, who enlarged the opposite parties on bail by order dated 12-4-1996 under Sections 406 and 409 IPC. Later on, when charges were framed, the opposite parties were charged for the offence under Sections 406,409,420,467,468,471,201 and 204 IPC on 18-5-2002. After framing of the charge, the Chief Judicial Magistrate directed the opposite parties to appear before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate to give sureties in additional sections. THE copy of the order is Annexure No. 8 to the affidavit. THE said order was challenged by the opposite parties by way of application under Section 482 Cr. P. C, but no interim relief has been granted by this Court. When the opposite parties failed to appear before the Court concerned, the Court issued non-bailable warrant by order dated 25-9-2002. THE accused preferred a criminal revision before the Sessions Judge, stating that the application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. is pending before this Court and until passing of the appropriate order, the operation of the order dated 25-9-2002 be stayed for a short term. THE Sessions Judge admitted the revision and recalled the order dated 25-9-2002, by his order dated 27-9-2002. THE applicant approached this Court by filing Miscellaneous Writ Petition and this Court was pleased to stay the order of the Sessions Judge to the extent of recalling the warrant. When the order of Sessions Judge was stayed by this Court, the opposite parties surrendered and moved bail applications before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau, who, without following the procedure, illegally allowed bail to opposite parties. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant moved bail cancellation application before the Sessions Judge, Mau, who rejected it, without considering these facts, by order dated 29-10-2003. This is the subject-matter of challenge in this petition besides the cancellation of bail order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau.

(3.) I have heard Sri M. S. Ansari, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A. G. A. and Sri R. P. Yadav, learned Counsel for the opposite parties.