MOHAMMAD HANIF BHANU Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under section 482 Cr. P.C., the petitioner, who is facing trial for offence punishable under sections 302/34 I.P.C. in the Court of IVth AddI. Sessions Judge, Ujjain (being S.T. No 219/86) prays for quashing the order passed on an application preferred by him under section 91 Cr. P.C. as also the order, directing issuance of warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner, by the trial Court. Shri Sanothiya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that petitioners mother is ill, in order to enable to attend on his ailing mother the petitioner was ordered to be temporarily released on bail in view of his motherTs illness. According to the learned counsel the petitioner being the only son, is required, to attend on his mother, who it was stated, was required to be admitted to Indian Institute of Medical Science, Delhi. The matter does not appear to be as plain as sought to be painted by the learned counsel. Certified copies of the order sheets dated 24-4-87and 25-4-87 of S.T. No. 219/86 go to show that progress of the trial is hampered for some reason or other, advanced by the petitioner. Shri Solanki, learned Govt. Advocate states, that the petitioner had on earlier occasions, either obtained bail or extension of time under the pretext of mothers illness. According to the learned Govt. Advocate time thus saved, is being exploited for influencing the prosecution witnesses, as is evident from an application made by eye-witness Madan Singh and referred to by the learned trial Judge in his order sheet dated 24-4-87. According to witness Madan Singh, some relations of the accused/petitioner had approached him with a view to deter and desist him from stating the truth before the Court for which he was allured as well as threatened. It needs to be noted that on 24-4- 87 learned counsel for the accused sought time to cross-examine this witness Masian Singh, whose examination in chief had concluded, on the ground that he desired to cross-examine the witness in presence of the accused, the case was fixed for next day i.e., 24-4-87 but, although the witnesses were present no cross-examination of witness Madan Singh was done on the ground that the accused was not present. On the one hand, the accused is abstaining from trial while on the other hand the witnesses are being threatened for making a desired statement. It is a travesty of justice that section 482 Cr. P.C. is being invoked for delaying the trial, that too, for a purpose adumbrated above. The object of section 482 Cr. P.C. is very clearly laid down in the section itself. This section can be invoked only for the following three purposes: (1) to give effect .any order under the Court; (2) to prevent abuse of the process of any court ; and (3) to secure the ends of justice. The present petition does not aim at any of these three objects. Mothers illness, as pleaded and propounded by the petitioner would seemingly appear to be humane consideration which this court would probably have beell persuaded to believe on compassionate grounds, but unfortunately, even as per medical certificate filed by the petitioner in earlier petition (M. Cr .C. No. 244/87) all that has been certified by the doctor is This is to certify that Kamrunnisha w/o Noorbaksh is suffering from Jaundice and Giddiness since today morning. She is advised to take complete bed rest for about 15 days with effect from today i.e. 17th January, 87.

(2.) The other certificate, which is dated 9-4-87 issued by the same, doctor reads as follows: This is to certify that Smt. Kamrunnisba w/o Noorbaksh, Jhansi is suffering from Jaundice and Giddiness. She is unable to walk. For further treatment I suggest her to admit in Indian Institute of Medical Science, Delhi. It will take about 12 weeks.T Such certificates to say the least are not inspiring of any confidence. A mere suggestion to the patient for being admitted to an institute of repute, by itself does not afford any justifiable ground for an accused to abstain from trial, considering the nature of illness and the certificates, this court has no manner of doubt, about the purposefully obtained certificates. Apart from the present petition the petitioner had preferred M.Cr.C. No. 12/87 on 5-1-87 praying for being released on bail. Considering petitionerTs mothers illness this court vide ardor dated 10-1-87 directed the petitioner to be temporarily released on bail till 16-2-87, but as is evident from the certified copies of the order sheets dated 11-2-87, 24-4-87 and 25-4-87 the petitioner abstained from trial. Release on bail, does not give any accused, a general licence to abstain from trial. After passing of the aforesaid order dated 10-1.87 by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 12/87 the petitioner moved yet another application under sections 438,439 Cr. P.C. on 11-2.87 which was registered as M.Cr.C. No. 244/87. By this petition he prayed for extension of time of interim period of bail, which was to expire on 16-2-87. This time apart from mothers illness, the petitioner made it a ground that his wife was also ill. The Court however, extended period till 31-3- 87 vide order dated 19-2-87. The grievances made by Shri Solanki that orders were passed without hearing the State does not seem to be without substance. It also needs to be noted that the petitioner, neither on 16-2-87 nor on 31-3-87 surrendered before the trial court, as was directed by this court. On 31-3-87 when the petitioner was expected to surrender, the petitioner came out with another application under section 438 read with section 482 Cr. P.C. registered as M.Cr.C. No. 442/87 and the period was extended up to 19-4.87. The petitioner was directed to surrender on 20-4-87. The grievance expressed by Shri Solanki that State was not heard, again appears to be justified as the order sheet dated 31-3.87 was passed in M.Cr.C. No. 442/87. As the petitioner was required to surrender before the trial court on 20-4-87, that very day he made yet another petition under section 482 Cr. P.C. praying for being released on bail. This was registered as M.Cr.C. No. 571/87. Inspite of directions by the court the petitioner never surrendered before the trial court as and when his bail term expired. On the other hand, he preferred to remain absent before the trial court where he was directed to appear. This bail petition under section 482 Cr. P.C. has been listed today for final hearing. During the course of arguments other connected petition (M.Cr.C. No 667/87) was also preferred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner. This petition No. 667/87 has been listed for orders on l.A. No. 506/87 for bail. Both these petitions are inter connected and relate to the same matter, therefore they are being disposed of by this common order. The object and purpose of section 482 has already been stated above. Short question which arises for consideration is, whether an accused, such as the present petitioner, should either be admitted to bail, or the term of his bail-period be extended as prayed for, by him.

(3.) The above stated facts is a tell-tale story in itself. .It would be a nothing short of an abuse of section 482 if such an accused person as the petitioner, who has all along been flouting the directions of this court, as regards his surrender before the trial court were admitted to bail or the term of bail already granted were to be extended. Admitting such a person to bail would amountT to putting a premium on the callous conduct indulged in by the petitioner. Needless to add that this petition is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. The other petition No. 667/81 also stands dismissed. Even while dismissing these petitions it is to be hoped that the trial court shall henceforth expeditiously proceed with the trial taking up appropriate measures for procuring the appearance of the accused petitioner.