Rajasthan High Court Seeks Explanation From CJM For Sending Accused To Custody Despite HC Converting Non-Bailable Warrant To Bailable One
Observing that such gross judicial indiscipline requires strong action, the Rajasthan High Court has called for an explanation from a Chief Judicial Magistrate of Banswara for sending an accused to judicial custody despite the high court having already converted the arrest warrant against him into a bailable one.Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhat said ordinarily, the court would be extremely...
Observing that such gross judicial indiscipline requires strong action, the Rajasthan High Court has called for an explanation from a Chief Judicial Magistrate of Banswara for sending an accused to judicial custody despite the high court having already converted the arrest warrant against him into a bailable one.
Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhat said ordinarily, the court would be extremely hesitant to initiate any action against a judicial officer for his judicial proceedings, as any decision taken by him could be open to multiple outcome of the conclusions and in the process even if some wrong decision is taken, it is amenable to jurisdiction of appropriate remedy.
However, the court said it is left with no other option but to go into the matter to find out as to how the Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken a view of sending a person to custody even when the high court had passed the order of converting the arrest warrant into bailable warrant.
"The willful flouting of the orders of this Court by the learned court below is writ large on the face of the record. Such gross judicial indiscipline requires strong indulgence of this Court," said the bench.
The court noted that the right to liberty is held in the highest pedestal, being enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and said “safeguarding the liberty against any illegal detention has to be dealt with in an effective manner”.
The court was hearing the plea seeking action against the CJM in the matter, and compensation in lieu of the loss to petitioner's reputation, image and business.
The accused was booked for kidnapping a school girl in 2011 under Sections 363, 366, and 342 of the IPC. Upon taking cognisance, an arrest warrant was issued against him. The accused, who is a resident of Bihar, subsequently entered into a compromise, and a petition to quash the case was filed. After considering the plea, the High Court converted the non-bailable arrest warrant into a bailable one.
However, the CJM, observing that the accused did not appear before it for 10 years without any reasonable excuse and was declared an absconder, ordered his custody.
The counsel for petitioner, Advocate Milap Chopra submitted that such deliberate and willful disobedience of the concerned judicial officer need to be taken note of and appropriate action be initiated against the concerned judicial officer.
Considering the submissions the Court said, “…it (is) impalpable that the Chief Judicial Magistrate would go over and above the orders of this Court, which not only amounts to grave judicial indiscipline, but also a clear violation of the orders passed by this Court.”
While noting that the accused was declared as absconder, the Court said, “an impressionable argument was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was a compromise between the parties and thus, he may be permitted to appear with a protection of substitution of arrest warrant with the bailable warrant.”
Justice Bhati further noted that only after taking the submission of compromise on record, “this court had taken a lenient view.”
While listing the matter to July 17, the court directed the Registry to call for an explanation from Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara and said "he has flouted the order of this Court, while sending the petitioner/applicant in custody even when the arrest warrant had already stood converted by this Court into bailable warrant."
“The Registrar (Judicial) alongwith copy of this order shall also forward a copy of application filed as well as proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court alongwith all the documents, to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara to enable him to submit his explanation along with the affidavit on or before 17.07.2023,” it added.
Case Title: Ramesh Kumar Mehta v. State Of Rajasthan
For Petitioner : Advocate Milap Chopra.
For Respondent: PP Sumer Singh Rajpurohit.