DRONENDU JHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Sections 439 and 440 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that when earlier bail application No. 4810 of 2003 was rejected then certain submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner was not recorded therein and without looking to the other materials available on record to the bail application. The order passed in B.A. No. 4810 of 2003 reads as follows : "Heard both the sides. The petitioner is the husband of the deceased wife who died in an unnatural death within two years of marriage. Allegedly she was tortured. A demand of Rs. two lakhs was also made. The postmortem report reveals the death is due to hanging. In view of the aforesaid fact, at present, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner, namely, Dronendu Jha, on bail. His prayer for ball is rejected at this stage."

(2.) Two questions arise (I) What Is the scope of this petition whether this petition can be treated as petition for regular bail (ii) whether this petition is required to be answered that a Court if had not considered certain submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, should re-appraise the order passed in a criminal proceeding. As by the order impugned the bail was rejected at that stage, at any subsequent time the petitioner on some new facts could have renewed his prayer for bail by filing a fresh bail application, which the petitioner has not done, rather this petition has been filed under Sections 439 and 440 of the Code of. Criminal Procedure for reviewing and/or recalling the order (supra).

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to certain judgments of the Apex Court arguing that the Court may consider these facts again which were not considered earlier passing the impugned order. The question therein was that certain grounds taken by the petitioner in that case were not taken into consideration by the Court. Therefore, the Apex Court said that matter may be considered by the Court itself and not by the Apex Court because it did not involve any substantial question of law. The Apex Court also said that when certain points were moved and not considered then in that circumstance it can be placed before that very Court.