R. S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) The petitioner-complainant has prayed for recalling of the order dated 21.12.05 whereby this court had restored the order dated 22.10.05 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.9 whereby the accused, Mr. Arvind Sharma was granted bail.
(2.) This case has a chequered history. On 2.9.05 the petitioner had lodged a report at Police Station, Adarsh Nagar, wherein he had alleged that on 1.12.02 his daughter, Arti, was married to Arvind Kumar Sharma. At the time of the wedding, the petitioner had given more dowry than he could possibly afford. However, still Arvind Kumar, his mother, Ramlata, his father, Dwarka Prasad Sharma and his Uncle (Mama) Girraj, would torture his daughter for insufficient dowry. He further narrated few more incidents where Arvind Kumar and his family members had misbehaved with the petitioner and his family members. On the basis of the said report a formal FIR, for offence under Section 498-A and 406 IPC was chalked out against Arvind Kumar Sharma, Dwarka Prasad Sharma, Ramlata Sharma and Shri Girraj Prasad Sharma. The four accused persons moved two separate anticipatory bail applications before the District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, which were subsequently transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur. However, vide order dated 26.9.05, the said anticipatory bail applications were rejected. Subsequently, Dwarka Prasad Sharma, Ramlata Sharma and Shri Girraj Sharma were arrested by the police and later on bailed out under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. Subsequently, Mr. Arvind Sharma moved another anticipatory bail application. But, the fact about the dismissal of the first anticipatory bail application was not mentioned in the said application. Vide order dated 22.10.05 the Addl. Sessions Judge No.9, Jaipur City accepted the bail application. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the order dated 22.10.05, he filed an application for cancellation of the bail before this Court. However, this court directed him to file the said application before the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 9. Consequently, the petitioner moved an application before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. Thereafter the Addl. Sessions Judge recalled the order on 14.12.05 and cancelled the bail granted to Mr. Arvind Sharma. Since Mr. Arvind Sharma was aggrieved by the said order, he filed a Misc. Petition before this court. According to the petitioner he was not impleaded as a party in the said petition. Vide order dated 21.12.05, this court after hearing the learned counsel for Mr. Arvind Sharma and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State had set aside the order dated 14.12.05 and restored the bail order dated 22.10.05. Since the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 21.12.05, he has filed the present petition for recalling the said order.
(3.) Mr. Vimal Choudhary, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently argued that while moving the Misc. Application before the court, the accused had purposefully not impleaded the complainant as a party, although his bail had been cancelled by an application moved by the complainant. Therefore, without hearing the complainant, the order dated 21.12.05 was passed. Secondly that once it was brought to the notice of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge that the accused had hidden vital information from the court, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge had cancelled the bail granted by him. Likewise the order dated 21.12.05 should be recalled.;