CORAM : HON BLE MR.JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH, CHIEF JUSTICE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE P.P. BHATT. For the Appellant

Transcription

1 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal(DB)No.458 of 2014 Santosh Sahu son of Sri Aklu Sahu, resident of village Arya, PO & PS-Kisko, District-Lohardaga.... Appellant -Versus- The State of Jharkhand... Respondent CORAM : HON BLE MR.JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH, CHIEF JUSTICE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE P.P. BHATT For the Appellant For the State : None : Mr.Pankaj Kumar, APP. Order no.13/ Dated 30 th July, 2015 Per Virender Singh, C.J. 1. One Santosh Sahu son of Aklu Sahu, resident of village Arya, PO & PS- Kisko, District- Lohardaga after suffering conviction for the charge of Section 302 and 307 IPC vide impugned judgment dated 31st May, 2014 handed down by learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga preferred Cr.Appeal (DB) No. 458 of Record reveals that the said appeal was admitted by the Court on 14th October, Alongwith Appeal, an Interlocutory Application (I.A. No of 2014) was moved by his father-aklu Sahu son of late Bhuneshwar Sahu, praying for provisional bail to appellant, taking the plea that his daughter-priya Kumari (daughter of original appellant) aged eight years is suffering from cancer and has been referred to All India Institute of Medical Sciences (New Delhi) by the doctors of RIMS, Ranchi. In the said application, it was averred that wife of appellant- Santosh Sahu had died on leaving behind one son, namely, Rahul Sahu aged 12 years and two daughters, namely, Chandani Kumari (10 years) and Priya Kumari (08 years). In para-7 of the said application, not only the

2 2 ailment of cancer from which Priya Kumari was shown to be suffering, many other ailments were also mentioned. Alongwith said application, certain medical prescriptions were also attached. In one of the prescriptions, the name- Priya Kumari is mentioned, whereas there is no mentioning of the complete address in the column of 'Full Address'. Certain medical prescriptions with regard to Sadar Hospital, Lohardaga are also annexed with the said application. 3. Alongwith the said application for provisional bail, Aklu Sahu-father of appellant has annexed his affidavit stating therein that he is Pairvikar of appellant and well acquainted with facts and circumstances of the case. Affirmation is also to the effect that contents of the application (I.A. No of 2014) are correct. The said affidavit is sworn by an advocate-oath Commissioner. Aklu Sahu is also identified by some one. Thus identification of Aklu Sahu, father of appellant-santosh Sahu, is not in dispute. 4. The Court believing the affidavit of Aklu Sahu, father of appellant-santosh Sahu, and the documents attached with the application to be true, granted provisional bail to appellant- Santosh Sahu vide order dated till 16th November, 2014 on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to satisfaction of Sessions Judge, Lohardaga. It is how appellant- Santosh Sahu was released on provisional bail till 16th November, 2014 with a direction to surrender on Record reveals that on , another Interlocutory Application bearing I.A. No of 2014 was filed by Aklu Sahu- father of appellant for extension of the period of provisional bail of appellant, which was valid till 16th November, 2014, upon which the State was granted

3 3 time to verify the facts. The matter was thus adjourned to 20th November, 2014, on which date one Shri Nawal Kishore Prasad, Advocate appearing for appellant sought permission to withdraw said I.A. No of The learned Additional Public Prosecutor informed the Court that all what was stated in I.A. No of 2014 was wrong. An affidavit of the Police Officer was filed to counter the averments made for extension of the period of provisional bail in which it was stated that the documents were verified from RIMS and AIIMS and it surfaced that documents were genuine but in fact Priya Kumaridaughter of appellant was not getting any treatment from AIIMS. Not only that, wife of appellant was still alive. No doubt, she has two daughters by the name of Chandani Kumari and Priya Kumari but those two daughters are studying in Ursuline Convent in Lohardaga and on verification from the Principal of the said school, it was disclosed that Priya Kumari had continuously attended the classes during month of November, It also revealed during inquiry that appellant- Santosh Sahu was driving pick-up van and during that period he had also married to another lady with whom he was having one daughter, who was ill but her name could not be ascertained. The Court on the basis of affidavit filed by police officer concerned did not permit withdrawal of I.A. No.5903 of 2014, despite the fact that counsel for appellant had made a statement that said application was filed partly on account of lack of communication and partly due to inadvertence. 6. The Court while taking a serious note of the fact that Aklu Sahu has filed a wrong affidavit, directed him to remain present personally before the Court to show cause as to why proceedings of contempt be not initiated against him. A direction was given to appellant- Santosh Sahu to surrender immediately before learned Sessions Judge,

4 4 Lohardaga as period of his provisional bail had already expired on Record further reveals that when matter was taken up on , earlier counsel for Aklu Sahu appeared and submitted that his client (Aklu Sahu) had not come present before the Court and he (Aklu Sahu) wants to engage another counsel. In this background, one more chance was given to Aklu Sahu to remain present before this Court. Record further reveals that on 3rd December, 2014 Aklu Sahu, who had furnished bail bond on behalf of his son-santosh Sahu appeared and made a statement before the Court that he was not aware of the whereabouts of his son (appellant herein). However, he assured the Court that he will take every effort to trace out his son and impress upon him to surrender in court. He was directed to remain present on the next date of hearing also i.e , on which date he did not appear. Since appellant- Santosh Sahu could not be arrested by the police, the matter was adjourned to another date. 8. The matter was taken up on 7th April, 2015 but till that stage also appellant- Santosh Sahu could not be nabbed by the police, although the concerned police had received some information from certain sources about his whereabouts. The matter was thereafter taken up on 9th July, 2015, on which date neither Aklu Sahu had appeared before the Court nor his son- Santosh Sahu surrendered or nabbed. It is in that flash back, non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued against Aklu Sahu, executable through Superintendent of Police concerned (Lohardaga). Pursuant to order dated 9th July, 2015, he has now been produced before the Court by one Navin Prakash Pandey, Sub Inspector of Police, Kisko Police Station, Lohardaga. 9. Since the bail bonds furnished by the sureties with regard to provisional bail granted to Santosh Sahu,

5 5 appellant herein, have been canceled and forfeited to the State, learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga shall initiate proceedings against both the sureties, in accordance with law. Since Aklu Sahu-father of appellant has also stood as one of the sureties, needless to say that he shall also be facing consequence of forfeiture of bail bonds. 10. That apart vide order dated 20th November, 2014 specific direction was given to him to remain personally present before this Court to show cause as to why a proceeding of contempt may not be initiated against him. He was supposed to be present before the Court on the next date of hearing i.e. 26th November, Since he did not appear on that date and thereafter on different dates given by the Court till 9th July, 2015, the Court was left with no option except to secure his presence through nonbailable warrants of arrest. Since he has now been produced before the Court in person, we hereby issue show cause notice to him as to why proceedings of contempt be not initiated against him for making false statement before the Court by way of an affidavit for the purpose of securing provisional bail to his son- Santosh Sahu, taking the plea of death of the wife of Santosh Sahu and one of his daughters-priya Kumari suffering from cancer, which fact has been found to be factually incorrect. 11. We grant him one week's time to respond to the said notice, explaining his stance before an appropriate order is passed in this regard. He shall remain in custody, if otherwise not released on bail in between, on laying motion. 12. On a specific query put to Aklu Sahu as to whether he wants to engage any advocate as his counsel to defend his case on his own or some advocate should be appointed as Amicus Curiae, he states that he at present is not in a position to engage any counsel, therefore services of some

6 6 Amicus Curaie be provided to him to defend his case. 13. We hereby appoint Mr. Yogesh Modi as Amicus Curiae to defend the case of Aklu Sahu- contemnor. 14. Superintendent of Police, Lohardaga shall also file his personal affidavit on or before next date of hearing, indicating as to what steps have been taken by him for nabbing Santosh Sahu, who after enjoying provisional bail has not surrendered till date. 15. Put up the instant matter on 5th August, Copy of the order, which includes show cause notice also, shall be provided to Mr.Yogesh Modi under the seal and signature of Court Master, enabling him to file response on behalf of the contemnor-aklu Sahu. Copy of order shall also be provided to Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned APP under the seal and signature of Court Master. ( Virender Singh, C.J. ) ( P.P. Bhatt, J. ) G.Jha/