HARISH CHANDRA, J. - (1.) THIS is an application under Sections 491 and 561 -A, Criminal Procedure Code A warrant dated 8th May 1919, was issued by Shri. V.K.B. Pillai, Regional Commissioner (who now takes the place of the Political Agent) of the United State of Rajasthan, under Section 7, Extradition Act, 1903 (15 of 1903) for the arrest of the applicant, Dr. Ram Babu Saxena, and for his removal to the United State of Rajasthan to be delivered to the District Magistrate of Tonk for enquiry into certain offences against the laws of that State which he is said to have committed. The warrant was addressed to the District Magistrate of Naini Tal within whoso jurisdiction the applicant resided at that time. The warrant authorised the District Magistrate of Naini Tal to release the applicant on bail if he furnished a bond in the sum of Rs. 10.000 with one surety in the like amount. The warrant was served upon the applicant at Naini Tal on 23rd May 1949 and he was, thereafter, released on bail and directed to present himself before the District Magistrate of Tonk as required by the said warrant, on 7th June 1949. The applicant presented this application to this Court on 3rd June 1949 accompanied by an affidavit alleging that the arrest of the applicant was illegal and praying that the proceedings pending before the District Magistrate of Naini Tal relating to his arrest pursuant to the said warrant be quashed and that he may be released from any obligation to surrender himself to the United State of Rajasthan. Although it is not stated in the warrant, it appears from the affidavit and other papers on the record that the offences with which the applicant has been charged are those under Sections 383 and 420, Penal Code. Although Section 561A, Criminal Procedure Code has also been mentioned in the application it is apparent that the application is one mainly under Section 491, Criminal Procedure Code
(2.) THE question arises whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Section 491, Criminal Procedure Code in the case of a person who is not under detention but has been released on bail. A doubt was expressed by the Judicial Commissioner's Court at Sind in the case of Jamna v. Emperor, AIR 1926 Sind 126 : (27 Cr LJ 37) whether it was necessary for the Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 491, Criminal Procedure Code where the person detained was on bail. But the question was set at rest by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Sandal Singh v. District Magistrate, Dehra Dun, 56 All 409 : (AIR 1934 All 148 : 35 Cr LJ 1296) and it was held, that where a person has been arrested consequent on a warrant of arrest the High Court could still interfere although he has been temporarily released on bail pending further enquiry.
(3.) THE applicant is a member of the United Provinces Civil (Executive) Service of about thirty years' standing and is a resident of this province. In the year 1947 his services were placed at the disposal of the Government of India in the Ministry of Information and Broad -casting as Deputy Secretary. In January 1948, he was appointed Administrator of the Tonk State where a dispute had arisen in regard to the succession to the gaddi. On 11th February 1948 one of the claimants, Nawab Ismail Ali Khan, was recognised as Nawab and the applicant was then appointed as Dewan and vice -president of the State Council of which the Nawab was the President. Later, the Tonk State merged into the State of Rajasthan on 1st May 1948. Thereafter the applicant was appointed Chief Executive Officer under the Rajasthan Government at Tonk and he held this office till 31st July 1948. After that he was appointed Special Officer to the Rajasthan Government at Udaipur and continued to hold that appointment upto the end of the month. After that he reverted to the United Provinces Government and was granted leave for a period of four months by that Government with effect from 1st September 1948. The leave has been further extended from time to time on medical grounds. The facts alleged against the applicant are that after his appointment as Dewan and Vice President of the State Council at Tonk the Nawab found himself in urgent need of money. His demand was for a sum of rupees fourteen lakhs out of the State Treasury. He approached the applicant who told him that he would help him in case he promised to give him a sum of three lakhs of rupees as his share. Thereafter the applicant helped the Nawab in obtaining the sanction of the State Ministry to the payment to him of the aforesaid amount. The first instalment amounting to a little over two and half lakhs of rupees was paid to the Nawab for the repayment of the debts which he had incurred during sahibzadgi, on 31st March 1948. A further sum of rupees five lakhs was paid to him on 21st April 1948 for the purchase of a house at Delhi. On receipt of this sum of rupees five lakhs by the Nawab on 2lst April 1948, the applicant asked him to pay him his share of three lakhs. On that day the Nawab paid him a sum of rupees one and a half lakhs only. Two or three days later the applicant asked him to pay up the balance, The Nawab tried to put him off, but the applicant told him that he had received information that he was "the cause of the alleged early death of the late Nawab" that he was "in league with the Azad Kashmir forces etc." and that "he would find himself in deep waters if he did not pay up the balance." Thereupon the Nawab paid him a lakh more. After another week the applicant approached the Nawab again and misrepresented to him that a number of complaints had been received against him and that the applicant "might find it difficult to protect him more particularly as the Nawab himself was not true to his promise". Thereupon the Nawab paid him the balance of Rs. 50,000. The matter became known to the Regional Commissioner in November 1948 and thereafter he called the applicant for an interview and subsequently managed to secure the return of the entire sum of rupees three lakhs by him to the Nawab. The charges under Sections 383 and 420, Penal Code are based on these facts.;