BHAGWAT GAUR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Cr. Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the proceedings in bail application No. 33/2013 and also the order dated 24.1.2013 passed in Bail Application No. 33/2013.

(2.) The facts contained in the writ petition are that a complaint was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 22 Jaipur City, Jaipur with the allegation against the respondents and other persons which was sent for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The police has not registered the case and with the intervention of the court, the FIR No. 160/2010 was registered. On 26.6.2010, a closure report was filed on the ground that alleged offences has been committed in area of Vidayakpuri Police Station. On 9.9.2011, the Court rejected the closure report and took cognizance against respondent No.2 for the offence under Sections 409, 420 and 120 B IPC. On 17.1.2013, respondent No.2 was detained in Indore and handed over to Rajasthan Police and police instead of producing him before the learned Magistrate admitted him in the hospital. On 19.1.2013, the bail application under Section 437 Cr.P.C., was filed which was rejected on 20.1.2013, on the same day a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was filed in the Court of Sessions Judge. However, the regular Sessions Judge has left his charge, hence it was placed before Additional Sessions Judge No.9 holding the charge of District and Sessions Judge. Additional Sessions Judge No.9 has transferred the bail application as Sessions Judge to his own court. An application was moved by the complainant to transfer the application to Additional Sessions Judge No.5 or to any other Court which was rejected. The complainant also moved petition before the High Court but his exercise was proved to be futile, the application was heard by respondent No.3 and the proceedings were continued till 6.25 PM. On 24.1.2013 the complainant asked for the adjournment which was rejected and without giving opportunity of hearing to him, on 24.1.2013, order was passed and bail application has been allowed in favour of respondent No.2.

(3.) The contention of the present petitioner is that Additional Sessions Judge NO.9 was not competent to transfer the bail application to his own court and the proceedings are illegal, arbitrary, unjustified and irrelevant material has been considered and with malafide intentions, the order has been passed hence the entire proceedings and order dated 24.1.2013 be quashed.