KOTHARI, J. - (1.) THIS contempt petition has been filed by Mr. Rajesh Singhal s/o Sugan Lal aged 43 years by caste Agarwal r/o Jaisal Nagar, Jodhpur against a judicial officer, Mr. Satyapal Verma, ACJM (Paryavaran) Pali purportedly for having committed the breach and disobedience of the orders passed by this Court on 20/7/2011 in S.B.Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1153/2011 - Rajesh Singhal vs. State & Anr. (Chandra Bhanu s/o Ghisa Lal - complainant) filed for quashing of standing warrant of arrest against the petitioner by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali.
(2.) AFTER hearing both the learned counsels, a coordinate bench of this Court while disposing of the criminal misc. Petition no. 1153/2011 under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which was directed against the order dated 25/6/2011 passed by Sessions Judge, Pali in criminal revision petition no. 61/2011,whereby, the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 24/8/2009 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate issuing standing arrest warrant against him came to be rejected. While disposing of the misc. Petition, the coordinate bench of this Court directed that since the petitioner was absconding, he may surrender before the court below on or before 8/8/2011 and in case he so surrenders on or before 8/8/2011 and applies before the learned Magistrate, his bail application shall be considered on the same day in accordance with law. It is considered appropriate to reproduce the said order of coordinate bench in extenso :- "1. This criminal miscellaneous petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against order dated 25.6.11 passed by the Sessions Judge, Pali in Criminal Revision Petition No.61/11, whereby the revision petition preferred by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 24.8.09 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate issuing standing arrest warrant against him, stands rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly, after investigation the police had filed negative final report and on notice being issued, the complainant filed the protest petition, however, the police after reinvestigation has filed charge sheet against the petitioner u/s 299 Cr.P.C. for offence u/s. 420 IPC . Learned counsel submitted that on the charge sheet being filed while taking cognizance, the learned Magistrate straight away declaring the petitioner absconder, proceeded to issue standing arrest warrant. Learned counsel submitted that the procedure laid down for declaring the petitioner an absconder and issuing standing arrest warrant has not been followed. Learned counsel submitted that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Magistrate issuing standing arrest warrant is abuse of the process of the court. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to surrender before the court concerned and therefore, upon his appearance before the Magistrate, he may be directed to be released on bail. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the order impugned passed by the revisional court affirming the order passed by the learned Magistrate. 4. Indisputably, in the first instance, the police filed negative final report against the petitioner and while the protest petition was still pending, the Investigating Officer made an application for the return of the report for reinvestigation. After conclusion of the investigation, the police has filed the charge sheet against the petitioner u/s 299 Cr.P.C. 5. It is to be noticed that while investigation was still pending, the petitioner was concealing himself and therefore, the police got issued the arrest warrant from the court concerned, however, the same could not be executed and therefore, the charge sheet was filed u/s 299 Cr.P.C. Thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in considered opinion of this court, the court below has not erred in arriving at the conclusion that the petitioner is absconding and therefore, the order impugned passed by the court issuing standing arrest warrant cannot be faulted with. 6. By the order impugned, the court has only directed that the proceedings u/s 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. maybe separately opened. Obviously, the procedure laid down for proclamation and attachment shall be followed by the trial court. 7. In this view of the matter, this court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned passed by the court below. However, taking into consideration the fact that in the first instance, the negative final report was filed by the police and now after reinvestigation, the charge sheet has been filed and the petitioner is ready to surrender before the court concerned, in the interest of justice, this court consider it appropriate to direct that if the petitioner surrenders before the court concerned on or before 8.8.11, the learned Magistrate shall consider his bail application on the same day in accordance with law. The execution of the order impugned passed by the court below shall be kept in abeyance till 12.8.11. 8. If the petitioner surrenders before the court concerned as directed above, the order impugned passed by the court below issuing standing arrest warrant and directing initiation of proceedings u/s 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. shall stand set aside. However, on the petitioner's failure to appear before the court on or before 12.8.11, the order passed by the court below shall become executable forthwith. 9. The criminal miscellaneous petition stands disposed of accordingly." The petitioner - Rajesh Singhal surrendered before the said Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali in relation to criminal case no. 363/2008 under Section 420 IPC against the present accused petitioner on 6/8/2011 and on the same day he moved the bail application through his advocate Shri Abhishek Parashar. Since the matter was pending reinvestigation, the Investigating Officer, namely; SHO, Police Thana, Pali also sought police custody of the accused for further investigation on 6/8/2011. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali himself was not available on 6/8/2011 as he had gone for holding Juvenile Justice Board Meeting, therefore, charge of his court was with the present respondent - ACJM (Paryavaran), Pali , Shri Satyapal Verma. Separate order sheet entry on the application filed by the present petitioner on 6/8/2011 and the order drawn on the application filed by Om Prakash, ASI seeking police custody of petitioner read as under:- Order passed on petitioner's bail application JUDGEMENT_1977_RAJLW3_20131.jpg JUDGEMENT_1977_RAJLW3_20132.jpg On 8/8/2011, the bail application of the petitioner was rejected by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali and the following order was passed:- JUDGEMENT_1977_RAJLW3_20133.jpg JUDGEMENT_1977_RAJLW3_20134.jpg On 11/8/2011, the learned Sessions Judge, Pali, granted the bail application of the petitioner and the following order was passed:- JUDGEMENT_1977_RAJLW3_20135.jpg
(3.) THUS , on the application filed by the Investigating Officer seeking police custody of the accused on 6.8.2011 itself, the said judicial officer passed the detailed order giving accused in police custody for 24 hours and to be produced again before the court for judicial custody or police custody, as the case may be, and thus, the consideration of bail application was made by the learned ACJM, Pali and keeping it pending the same was again posted on 8.8.2011, on which date the bail application was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali himself. The petitioner accused is said to have been enlarged on bail by the higher court of learned Sessions Judge, Pali after 3 days on 11.8.2011.;