Hamida
Vs. Rashid @ Rasheed & Ors [2007] Insc 470 (27 April 2007)
G.P. Mathur & A.K. Mathur
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.4891of 2005) G. P. MATHUR,
J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal, by special leave, has been filed by the complainant Hamida
widow of Balla against the judgment and order dated 1.7.2005 of Allahabad High
Court, by which the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the accused
respondents herein was disposed of with certain directions. By the impugned
order it was directed that the accused respondents, who had been initially
granted bail in offences under Sections 324, 352 and 506 IPC by the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar, would continue to remain on bail even after
the offence had been converted to one under Section 304 IPC, if they furnished
the requisite personal bonds and sureties before the concerned Court.
3. The appellant Hamida lodged an FIR at P.S. Kotwali, Muzaffarnagar at
00.10 hours on 13.6.2005 alleging that when her husband Balla was participating
in a Panchayat of the Biradari (community) the four accused respondents lodged
an attack upon him with licensed and illegal arms, exhorting that they would
kill him.
Naushad accused assaulted him with a 'chhuri' (long knife) due to which Balla
received serious injuries. The other accused fired from their respective
weapons and thereafter ran away from the scene of occurrence. On the basis of
the FIR lodged by the appellant, a case was registered as Crime No. 792 of 2005
under Sections 324, 352 and 506 IPC at P.S. Kotwali, Muzaffarnagar. The injured
Balla was rushed to the District Hospital, where he was medically examined at 11.10 p.m. on 12.6.2005. He had sustained serious stab wound in his abdomen from which
loops of intestines were coming out.
4. Two accused respondents were arrested by the police and were produced
before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 13.6.2005 for the purpose of
seeking remand. The accused also moved a bail application seeking bail in Case
Crime No.792 of 2005 which had been registered against them. The
complainant-appellant Hamida also put in appearance through a counsel and filed
an affidavit stating that as a serious injury had been caused to the injured Balla
and accused had resorted to firing, the offence committed by them was one under
Section 307 IPC, but the police in collusion with the accused had registered
the case only under Sections 324, 352 and 506 IPC. It was also submitted that
on account of the serious injuries received by the injured Balla, he had been
referred to the Medical College, Meerut, and the bail application should be
heard after summoning the medical examination report. The learned CJM, however,
observed that remand of the accused had been sought only in the offences in
which the case had been registered against them and as the offences were bailable,
they were entitled to bail. He accordingly passed an order on the same day i.e.
13.6.2005 granting bail to the accused Rashid and Arshad. It was, however, made
clear in the order that if the case was converted into a more serious offence,
the accused would not get any benefit of the bail being granted to them.
Subsequently, the remaining two accused were also released on bail. Balla
succumbed to his injuries in the night intervening 16th and 17th of June, 2005.
Thereafter, the offence was converted into one under Section 304 IPC. It was at
this stage that the four accused respondents filed a petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C. before the High Court seeking a direction to the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar, to permit them to remain on same bail even after
conversion of the offence into one under Section 304 IPC. The only submission
made before the High Court was that on the same facts and circumstances, the
accused had been granted bail by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and they
had not misused the privilege of the bail and, therefore, they should be
allowed to remain on bail even after conversion of offence. The High Court
accepted the prayer made on behalf of the accused respondents and the relevant
part of the order, which is under challenge, is being reproduced below :-
"In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the applicants, it is directed that if the
applicants appear before the court concerned and furnish their personal bonds
and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned the same shall be accepted under Section 304 I.P.C.
With these observations, the application is disposed of finally."
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The principal submission
of learned counsel for the appellant (complainant) is that the power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. could not have been exercised by the High Court in granting
bail to the accused respondents as there is a specific provision in the Code of
Criminal Procedure viz. Section 439 under which the accused could approach the
appropriate Court for grant of bail to them. It has been further submitted that
while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the High Court has committed
grave error in issuing the direction that the bail granted to the accused for
an offence under Sections 324, 352 and 506 IPC will enure to their benefit even
after conversion of the case which was registered against them into one under
Section 304 IPC. The submission is that the accused respondents ought to have
surrendered and after they had been taken into custody, they should have
applied afresh for bail in the offence under Section 304 IPC.
6. We are in agreement with the contention advanced on behalf of the
complainant appellant. Section 482 Cr.P.C. saves the inherent powers of the
High Court and its language is quite explicit when it says that nothing in the
Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court
to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the
Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice. A procedural Code, however exhaustive, cannot expressly provide
for all time to come against all the cases or points that may possibly arise,
and in order that justice may not suffer, it is necessary that every court must
in proper cases exercise its inherent power for the ends of justice or for the
purpose of carrying out the other provisions of the Code. It is well
established principle that every Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae
to do that real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone
it exists or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. As held by the Privy
Council in Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad AIR 1945 PC 18 with regard to Section
561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Section 482 Cr.P.C. is a
verbatim copy of the said provision) gives no new powers. It only provides that
those which the Court already inherently possesses shall be preserved and is
inserted, lest it should be considered that the only powers possessed by the
Court are those expressly conferred by the Code and that no inherent power had
survived the passing of the Act.
7. It is well established principle that inherent power conferred on the
High Courts under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly with
circumspection and in rare cases and that too to correct patent illegalities or
when some miscarriage of justice is done. The content and scope of power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. were examined in considerable detail in Madhu Limaye v.
State of Maharashtra AIR 1978 SC 47 and it was held as under :
"The following principles may be stated in relation to the exercise of
the inherent power of the High Court - (1) That the power is not to be resorted
to if there is a specific provision in the Code for the redress of the
grievance of the aggrieved party;
(2) That it should be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of process
of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice;
(3) That it should not be exercised as against the express bar of law
engrafted in any other provision of the Code."
8. In State v. Navjot Sandhu (2003) 6 SCC 641 (para 29), after a review of
large number of earlier decisions, it was held as under :
"29. The inherent power is to be used only in cases where there is an
abuse of the process of the Court or where interference is absolutely necessary
for securing the ends of justice. The inherent power must be exercised very
sparingly as cases which require interference would be few and far between. The
most common case where inherent jurisdiction is generally exercised is where
criminal proceedings are required to be quashed because they are initiated
illegally, vexatiously or without jurisdiction. Most of the cases set out
herein above fall in this category. It must be remembered that the inherent
power is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code or
any other enactment for redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party. This
power should not be exercised against an express bar of law engrafted in any
other provision of the Criminal Procedure Code. This power cannot be exercised
as against an express bar in some other enactment."
9. In Arun Shankar Shukla v. State of U.P. (1999) 6 SCC 146 the High Court
had entertained a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after an order of
conviction had been passed by the Sessions Judge and before the sentence had
been awarded and further proceedings in the case had been stayed. In appeal
this Court set aside the order of the High Court after reiterating the
principle that it is well settled that inherent power is not to be invoked in
respect of any matter covered by specific provisions of the Code or if its
exercise would infringe any specific provision of the Code. It was further
observed that the High Court overlooked the procedural law which empowered the
convicted accused to prefer statutory appeal against conviction of the offence
and intervened at an uncalled for stage and soft-pedalled the course of justice
at a very crucial stage of the trial. The order of the High Court was
accordingly set aside on the ground that a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
could not have been entertained as the accused had an alternative remedy of an
appeal as provided in the Code. It is not necessary to burden this judgment
with other decisions of this Court as the consistent view throughout has been
that a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained if there is any
other specific provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure for redress of the
grievance of the aggrieved party.
10. In the case in hand, the accused respondents could apply for bail afresh
after the offence had been converted into one under Section 304 IPC. They
deliberately did not do so and filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in
order to circumvent the procedure whereunder they would have been required to
surrender as the bail application could be entertained and heard only if the
accused were in custody. It is important to note that no order adverse to the
accused respondents had been passed by any Court nor there was any miscarriage
of justice or any illegality. In such circumstances, the High Court committed
manifest error of law in entertaining a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and
issuing a direction to the subordinate court to accept the sureties and bail
bonds for the offence under Section 304 IPC. The effect of the order passed by
the High Court is that the accused after getting bail in an offence under
Section 324, 352 and 506 IPC on the very day on which they were taken into
custody, got an order of bail in their favour even after the injured had
succumbed to his injuries and the case had been converted into one under
Section 304 IPC without any Court examining the case on merits, as it stood
after conversion of the offence. The procedure laid down for grant of bail
under Section 439 Cr.P.C., though available to the accused respondents, having
not been availed of, the exercise of power by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
is clearly illegal and the impugned order passed by it has to be set aside.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that charge under Section
302 IPC has been framed against the accused respondents by the trial court and
some subsequent orders were passed by the High Court by which the accused were
ordered to remain on bail for the offence under Section 302 read with Section
34 IPC on furnishing fresh sureties and bail bounds only on the ground that
they were on bail in the offence under Section 304 IPC. These orders also
deserve to be set aside on the same ground.
12. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 1.7.2005
passed by the High Court and all other subsequent orders whereby the accused
respondents were directed to remain on bail for the offence under Section 302
read with Section 34 IPC on furnishing fresh sureties and bail bonds are set
aside. The accused respondents shall be taken into custody forthwith. It is,
however, made clear that it will be open to the accused respondents to apply
for bail for the offences for which they are charged before the appropriate
Court and in accordance with law.
13. Before parting with the case, we feel constrained to observe that in
spite of repeated pronouncements of this Court that inherent power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in rare
cases and that too when miscarriage of justice is done, the High Court
entertained the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the ultimate result whereof
was that the order of bail granted in favour of the accused for an offence
under Sections 324, 352 and 506 IPC enured to their benefit even after the offence
had been converted into one under Section 304 IPC and also subsequently when
charge had been framed against them under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
The accused did not remain in custody even for a single day nor did they
approach the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate or Sessions Judge for being
granted bail under Section 304 or 302 IPC, yet they got the privilege of bail
under the aforesaid offences by virtue of the order passed by the High Court.
The dockets of the High Courts are full and there is a long pendency of murder
appeals in the High Court from which this case has arisen. Ends of justice
would be better served if valuable time of the Court is spent in hearing those
appeals rather than entertaining petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at an
interlocutory stage which are often filed with some oblique motive in order to
circumvent the prescribed procedure, as is the case here, or to delay the trial
which will enable the accused to win over the witnesses by money or muscle
power or they may become disinterested in giving evidence, ultimately resulting
in miscarriage of justice.
Back
Pages: 1 2
