Case: Jagga @ Jagat Singh and Ors. Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)
| Judges | A.K. Shrivastava and Sushma Shrivastava, JJ. |
| Issue | Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 100, 340, 389, 438, 439 |
| Citation | 2009 (2) JLJ 254, 2009 (3) MPHT 519 |
| Judgement Date | January 21, 2009 |
| Court | High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India) |
Order:
A.K. Shrivastava, J., (At Jabalpur)
1. I.A. No. 14676/2008 which is third application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail has been filed on behalf of appellant No. 3 Satish Soni.
2. Shri Patel, learned Additional Advocate General has raised a preliminary objection that the first application of suspension of sentence (M.Cr.P. No. 6127/2004) which was filed by this appellant was rejected by the Bench comprising Justice Rajeev Gupta (as His Lordship then was) and Justice Rakesh Saksena on 7-1-2005. The second bail application (I.A. No. 223/2007) was dismissed by the Bench comprising of Justice S.S. Jha and Justice Rakesh Saksena on 19-1-2007, therefore, this third application of suspension of sentence cannot be listed before this Regular Bench and should be listed in a Bench in which one of the member is Justice Rakesh Saksena in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Gopal and Ors. v. State of M.P. 2005 (1) MPJR 141, because Justice Rajeev Gupta (as His Lordship then was) has been elevated as Chief Justice and presently posted at High Court of Chhattisgarh and Justice S.S. Jha has demitted the office. By placing reliance on another Division Bench decision of this Court in Badam Singh and Ors. v. State of M.P. 2007 (4) M.P.H.T. 99, it has been argued that while answering to the reference the Division Bench has held as under:
(I) The application for suspension of sentence dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed should be placed before the same Bench/Judge who passed the earlier order.
(II) The order of granting/rejecting interim bail earlier, would be deemed to be the order of consideration of first prayer and any successive prayer made in any number of application would come within the purview of successive prayer and shall be heard by the same Bench/Judge, who heard the application considering the interim prayer earlier, if the said Judge/Bench is available and it will be listed before other Bench/Judge only if the said Bench/Judge is not available for a sufficient duration, so that the prayer for interim suspension of sentence may not become infructuous.
3. Learned Additional Advocate General has invited our attention to Rule 15 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 2008') which came into force with effect from 1-11-2008 and has submitted that under this rule the subsequent bail applications are to be listed before the same Judge/Bench who/which has decided the first application even if earlier application was dismissed for want of prosecution, or dismissed as not pressed or withdrawn.
4. Learned Additional Advocate General has also invited our attention to Rule 16 of the Rules of 2008 which relates to "Tied up Matters" and has submitted that under this rule whenever a Judge is not available for any reason and in the opinion of the Chief Justice, a matter is tied up to him, looking to its urgency is required to be decided early, it shall not be treated as tied up matter and may be listed before another Bench, as per directions of the Chief Justice. By inviting our attention to the definition of "Tied up Matters" as envisaged in Clause (23) of Rule 4 of Chapter I of Rules of 2008, it has been argued that the tied up matters would include any order or judgment as required to be heard by a particular Judge or Bench and would include repeat applications for bail or suspension of sentence.
5. Learned Additional Advocate General has also placed reliance on the decisions of Supreme Court, they are Shahzad Hasad Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan AIR 1987 SC 1613, Harjeet Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 2002 SC 281. He has also placed reliance on two Full Bench decisions of this Court in Narayan Prasad v. State of M.P. 1992 (II) MPJR 298 and Santosh v. State of M.P. 2000 (I) MPJR 349. He has also placed reliance on another decision of Supreme Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan 2004 AIR SCW 1581 and has submitted that in view of these decisions, this third application of suspension of sentence should be listed before a Bench in which one of the member is Justice Rakesh Saksena.
6. Considered the argument.
7. On going through the record, it is revealed that Registrar (J) put up the matter on 28-11-2008 before Hon'ble the Chief Justice with following note:
The I.A. No. 14676/2008 is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, moved on behalf of...
To continue reading
Request your trial