Skip to content


Alladeen and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Criminal Misc. Application No. 129/1977
Judge
Reported in1977WLN504
AppellantAlladeen and anr.
RespondentThe State of Rajasthan
Excerpt:
.....duty of the investigating officer to recover, in the course of investigation, it possible, the at ticks alleged to have been stolen.;it is a fit case for interference with the order of the sessions judge in exercise of inherent powers of this court.;application accepted - .....in this case by the sessions judge. partabgarh, on august 3, 1977, under section 438, cr. p.c. learned sessions judge granted anticipatory bail to alladeen and peer mohammad petitioners in a criminal case pending against them under sections 323, 341 and 379, i.p.c. while granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners, the sessions judge laid down certain conditions, presumably in the light of the facts in this case. one of the conditions objected to by the learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the petitioners in the event of their arrest shall be released on bail, provided they produced the watch and the sum of rs. 250/-, before the investigating officer. it will not be out of place to mention that the watch and the sum of rs. 250/-, are alleged to have been the stolen.....
Judgment:

K.D. Sharma, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the impugned order passed in this case by the Sessions Judge. Partabgarh, on August 3, 1977, under Section 438, Cr. P.C. Learned Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail to Alladeen and Peer Mohammad petitioners in a criminal case pending against them under Sections 323, 341 and 379, I.P.C. While granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners, the Sessions Judge laid down certain conditions, presumably in the light of the facts in this case. One of the conditions objected to by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, is that the petitioners in the event of their arrest shall be released on bail, provided they produced the watch and the sum of Rs. 250/-, before the Investigating Officer. It will not be out of place to mention that the watch and the sum of Rs. 250/-, are alleged to have been the stolen properties. Imposition of such a condition Under Section 438, Cr. P.C., even though accepted or agreed to by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused, is wholly unwarranted by law for the simple reason that the accused person cannot be compelled to give evidence or to produce any article or document which may tend to implicate him in the commission of the crime or which may be proved as an incriminatory circumstance against him at the trial. It is the duty of the investigating officer to recover, in the course of investigation, if possible the articles alleged to have been stolen.

2. The Sessions Judge committed a grave error in directing or calling upon the accused persons to produce the watch and the money which were the subject matter of the alleged theft. Only such condition can be included in a direction under sub-Section (1) of Section 438, Cr. P.C. as may appear to be just and reasonable in the light of the facts of a particular case.

3. In this view of the matter, I feel inclined to hold that it is a fit case for interference with the order of the Sessions Judge in exercise of inherent powers of this Court.

4. Consequently, the application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. filed by the petitioners is accepted and the condition laid down by the Sessions Judge, Partabgarh, that the petitioners shall be bailed out provided they produce the. watch and the amount of Rs. 250/-, before the investigating officer is set aside. Rest of the conditions included in the order shall remain intact.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //