DEEPAK GOPALDAS BAJAJ Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties were heard on the last date. In this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the said Code) a very short question arises for consideration. The said question is as under :-

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is very narrow. The applicant was arrested with an allegation of offence punishable under sections 465 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 135(l)(a) and 135(l)(b) read with 135(l)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. Initially the applicant was remanded to Judicial custody. On 15th June, 2007 the learned Metropolitan Magistrate granted the application for bail made by the applicant and enlarged the applicant on bail. An application was filed by the 1st respondent before this Court for cancellation of the bail. The application was withdrawn with a liberty to file appropriate application before appropriate Court and accordingly, an application was filed by the 1 st respondent before the Sessions Court seeking cancellation of bail granted in favour of the applicant. The said application came up before the learned Sessions Judge, Mumbai. On 11th July, 2008 an Order was passed by the learned Sessions Judge directing the advocate for the applicant to keep the applicant present on 21 st July, 2008. The said Order passed by the learned Sessions Judge reads thus :-

(3.) The submission or the learned counsel for the applicant is that while deciding an application under section 439(2) of the said Code, there is no jurisdiction or power vesting in the Sessions Court to direct the respondent in the said application to remain present before the Sessions Court even before his bail is cancelled. His further submission is that there is no inherent power vesting in the Sessions Court. Therefore, the impugned direction issued by the learned Sessions Judge was without jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent supported the impugned Orders. He submitted that there is no prohibition under the provisions of the said Code which prevents the learned Sessions Judge from passing such an Order. He pointed out the conduct of the applicant of evading the process of law. He pointed out that there is an Order of preventive detention passed against the petitioner which could not be served to the petitioner till today. He submitted that considering the conduct of the applicant, the learned Sessions Judge was justified in issuing directions for ensuring that the applicant remains present when the application for cancellation of bail is heard. He has placed a reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dashrath N. Shekokar vs S. B. Prabhu and others, in Criminal Application No. 2407 of 1993 and Criminal Writ Petition No. 909 of 1993 decided on 14th January, 1994. He, therefore, submitted that there is no reason to interfere with the discretionary order passed by the learned Sessions Judge.