Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No. 541 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Indra Mani Singh Son of Late Ram Chandra Prasad Singh, resident of Vilage- Manguar, P.S. Basnahi, District- Saharsa. 2. Devendra Paswan Son of late Laxmi Paswan, resident of Village- Bargaon, P.S. Basnahi, District- Saharsa. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL ORDER 3. 15-05-2012 Heard Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitendra Kumar Roy, learned A.P.P. for the State. The present revision application is directed against the order dated 31.03.2012 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa in G.R. Case No. 640 of 2011 arising out of Basnahi P.S. Case No. 13 of 2011 by which he has cancelled the bail bond of the petitioners while fixing the date for their appearance on 04.06.2012. Learned counsel for the petitioner has addressed this Court on a very limited issue. He submits that this Court earlier by order dated 28.09.2011 in Cr. Misc. No. 23109 of 2011 had granted the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in the present case. However, it was mentioned in the order that till conclusion of the Patna High Court CR. REV. No.541 of 2012 (3) dt.15-05-2012 2 / 5 2 investigation/submission of the chargesheet, in the event of arrest /surrender before the Court below within four weeks, the petitioners were directed to be enlarged on bail. Pursuant to the same, the petitioners surrendered before the Court below on 17.10.2011 and were enlarged on bail as per the order of the High Court. It appears that subsequently chargesheet was submitted against the petitioners and by order dated 31.03.2012 the Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa took cognizance under [STATUTE] . By the same order he has also cancelled the bail bonds of the petitioners and issued warrant of arrest against them. Learned counsel submits that the Court has erred both in cancelling the bail bonds as well as issuance of warrant of arrest against the petitioners. He submits that the law is now well settled inasmuch as bail, either anticipatory or regular, once granted even for a limited period normally continues till the conclusion of the trial. However, such privilege can be withdrawn under exceptional circumstances where either it has been established during investigation that the petitioners have committed some serious offence and that their liberty needs to be curtailed, otherwise the normal course is to let them continue on bail. For the said proposition learned counsel has relied on the following reported decisions:- (1) Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. Patna High Court CR. REV. No.541 of 2012 (3) dt.15-05-2012 3 / 5 3 State of Maharashtra reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694, and (2) Bishundeo Sahu Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2011 (1) PLJR 731, the relevant being at paragraphs no. 19 and 39. Learned counsel submits that the law has now been well settled in this regard and anticipatory bail normally ought not to be granted for a fixed duration and if the liberty granted to the accused is not misused then ordinarily the bail should be continued till end of trial. Learned counsel next submits that in the same order cancellation of bail bonds and issuance of warrant of arrest is also unsustainable since no opportunity has been given to the petitioners to appear before the Court and explain their stand. By issuing warrant of arrest the presumption is that the petitioners have refused to appear before the Court. Thus learned counsel submits that it is also against the principles of natural justice where a negative presumption cannot be inferred either from the conduct of the petitioners or from the materials on record. Drawing analogy from the decision relied upon by him, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the present case the gravity of charges as it was at the time of the F.I.R. and was taken note of by this Court while earlier granting anticipatory bail, and in the final chargesheet being submitted, was the same, the only difference being the stage Patna High Court CR. REV. No.541 of 2012 (3) dt.15-05-2012 4 / 5 4 of the investigation i.e., submission of chargesheet. Learned A.P.P. for the State submits that sufficient materials have come during investigation leading to submission of chargesheet and thus it warranted the petitioners to appear before the Court and seek regular bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is in agreement with the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners. The Court has committed an error in cancellation of bail bonds of the petitioners and issuance of warrant of arrest at the very first instance. Once the petitioners were before the Court, there was no question of issuance of any warrant of arrest since technically they were in judicial custody of the Court. Without giving them opportunity to appear, which the court could have done, direction for issuance of warrant of arrest was uncalled for. Further, cancellation of bail bonds implies that the Court has applied its mind and had disallowed the bail which is clearly erroneous both on facts as well as in law since the law permits that a person who is in custody either on the basis of the F.I.R. or subsequent to the chargesheet can make prayer for bail by presenting his defence. Once the High Court had considered the defence and granted the privilege of anticipatory bail and the sum and substance of the charges as well as the allegations having remained the same even after submission of chargesheet, it was incumbent upon the Court Patna High Court CR. REV. No.541 of 2012 (3) dt.15-05-2012 5 / 5 5 below to give an opportunity t

Applicable IPC Section: 409

Statute Text:
Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. Criminal breach of trust by public servant or by banker, merchant or agent, etc. Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.