A. PONNUCHAMI Vs. CBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vijendra Singh @ Teeliya has filed this Criminal Misc. Application in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4275 of 2012 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for recalling the order dated 27.4.2012 passed by this Court on behalf of the applicant Vijendra Singh @ Teeliya. It has been submitted on behalf of Virendra Singh @ Teeliya that on 27.4.2012 the bail application filed by A. Ponnuchami was heard and decided by this Court and in para. 10 some observations were made by this Court and these observations are seriously causing prejudice to the applicant, therefore this application for recalling the order dated 27.4.2012 has been filed confined only to para No. 10. It is further alleged in the application that finding recorded by this Court are causing serious prejudice to the applicant as in the garb of impugned findings, police is trying to implicate him in the false cases as higher police officials are accused in Dara Singh Murder case and the applicant is a witness in this case and therefore there are great possibilities that he may be booked in false cases. It is further stated that the substantial question of law arises in this case whether this court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 439 Cr.P.C. rejecting prayer for grant of bail made by the accused person, without impleading a person, can record finding of fats and issue directions for lodging criminal case against the said person? It has further been stated that it was the mandatory requirement under the law that before issuing any direction against any person opportunity of hearing should be granted to him and no order causing prejudice to him can be passed on his back as it is violation of principle of natural justice and therefore finding and observations made in para No. 10 in respect of the applicant are liable to be quashed and set aside. It is further stated that the order dated 27.4.2012 was assailed by the applicant in relation to para. 10 of the order dated 27.4.2012 passed in S.B. Criminal Bail Application No. 4275/2012 before the Apex Court and the same was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the High Court for appropriate redress as may be permissible in law. The learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on Full Bench decision of this Court in Habu vs. State of Raj., 1987 0 RLR 1 , and judgment of this Court in S.B. Cr. Misc. Application No. 403 of 2011 dated 15.11.2011.

(2.) Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma, Special Public Prosecutor and Mr. S.H. Khan, Public Prosecutor for the CBI and Mr. Peeyush Kumar and Mr. Pradeep Shrimal, Public Prosecutors appearing for the State has argued that this Hon'ble Court in the presence of Advocate General appearing for the State of Rajasthan and the Public Prosecutors appearing for the State of Rajasthan and the Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the CBI and in the presence of the counsel for the petitioner A. Ponnuchami as per the information supplied to the Court, this court passed the order to curb the illegal activities and keep peace in State of Rajasthan by adopting appropriate measures to book the criminal offenders. The note took by this court and the measures suggested by the Advocate General and other advocates appearing for the CBI and State, this Court directed for taking appropriate action. The findings recorded in para No. 10 of the judgment based on the basis of the record and the arguments raised by the parties and taken note of it by this court cannot be reviewed in an application filed by the applicant Vijendra Singh @ Teeliya, as it is a final judgment on the bail application filed by the petitioner as Section 362 Cr.P.C. prohibits any review of final judgment by the Criminal Court except clerical or arithmetical error. The judgment passed on a bail application filed by an accused cannot be reviewed or quashed and set aside in an application filed by a person who is stranger to the proceedings before this Court. Counsel drawn attention of this Court towards Section 362 Cr.P.C. and further stated that the SLP filed by the applicant against the order dated 27.4.2012 in relation to para No. 10 by Virendra Singh @ Teeliya was dismissed by the Apex Court as withdrawn. The application filed by the applicant is not maintainable. The order passed by this Court cannot be reviewed on an application filed by the applicant and the same was passed after hearing both the sides. Mr. Tej Prakash, Special Public Prosecutor in support of his arguments placed reliance on State of Punjab vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar, 2011 14 SCC 770 .

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and has also gone through the order passed by this Court dated 27.4.2012.