BIRENDRA JHA @ VIRENDRA JHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This case arises out of a criminal complaint, (C/1 Case No. 353/2001) filed by Mrs. Sarbjit Kaur against the petitioner under Sections 406 and 420, 1PC. The petitioners contention is that in this criminal complaint, the learned trial court has taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 406 and 420, IPC and issued process against the petitioner, by summoning the petitioner (through issuance of summon) to appear in the trial Court. Admittedly, the court below has not issued any warrant of arrest, bailable or non -bailable, against the petitioner. The petitioner has been called to appear in the trial Court only through the issuance of summons. The petitioners apprehension is that since the cognizance has been taken for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420, 1PC and these being non -bailable offences, as and when the petitioner appears in the Court below, the Court below may refuse to enlarge the petitioner on bail on the ground that the petitioner is accused of committing non -bailable offences. It is under these circumstances that the petitioner applied for grant of anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions Judge, who however, dismissed the same, vide order dated 4.7.2001, under challenge in this petition.

(2.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of clear opinion that if an accused -person appears in a trial Court after having been served the summons, after the trial Court has taken cognizance of the offence in the complaint, whether, the cognizance is with respect to bailable or non -bailable offences, because summons in the first instance have been issued for appearance of the accused, in normal circumstances, on the date the accused appears in the trial Court, he should be enlarged on bail by accepting the bail bond alongwith the surety bond furnished by the accused. Actually, I may even go a step further and hold that even if the trial Court, after taking cognizance as aforesaid in a private complaint, issues bailable warrant of arrest against an accused even with respect to alleged commission of non -bailable offences, if the accused appears in the trial Court in such a private complaint after execution of such bailable warrant of arrest, unless in the opinion of the trial Court, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, the denial of bail is clearly warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case, in normal conditions and in normal circumstances, the accused should be enlarged on bail. Of course, in respect of those offences, which are either quite serious in nature or are heinous, and where on well -established legal norms and parameters, denial of bail is a rule, the accused should not be enlarged on bail, but, with respect to such offences which are neither so serious not heinous, such as cases which are in the realm of either civil disputes land where cognizance has wrongly been taken) or such minor offences where punishment, even if ultimately awarded, may not be death sentence, or life imprisonment or imprisonment exceeding 7 (seven) years or thereafter, in a private complaint relating to such offences, the trial Court should, in normal circumstances, on the date the accused appears in execution of the process issued against him, should accept the bail bond of the accused along with the surety bond and order his being enlarged on bail.

(3.) BASED on the aforesaid observations, therefore I find that apprehension of the accused -petitioner is not well founded. The application for anticipatory bail accordingly is dismissed. The accused -petitioner is at liberty to appear in the court below (Sri O.P. Pandey, Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, in C/I case No. 353/2001 and apply for being enlarged on bail. If he does so, the trial Court shall pass appropriate orders in the light of the observations made hereinabove.