On November 9, 2020, the Rajasthan High Court directed the Registrar to initiate action against a Magistrate who issued Arrest Warrants against the accused, despite the fact that High Court had earlier granted them anticipatory Bail.
The Bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma also observed,
"The action of the learned Magistrate is clearly wanting and shows scant respect to the High Court's order as well as having little knowledge relating to criminal law."
The petitioner, Nanuram Saini, and Vinod Kumar were granted anticipatory bail by the High Court in the year 2003, in connection with the FIR registered against them on cheating charges.
Thereafter, the Magistrate took cognizance of the offenses relating to allegations under Section 418 ( Cheating with knowledge that wrongful loss may ensue to the person whose interest offender is bound to protect ), 420 ( Fraud ), 465( Punishment for Forgery ),468 ( Forgery for the purpose of cheating ), 471, 406( Punishment for Criminal Breach of Trust) & 120B (Punishment for Criminal Conspiracy ) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the accused/petitioner. The Court also issued arrest warrants against them (in September 2020).
After getting the knowledge of the arrest warrant the counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioners are on anticipatory bail granted by the High Court so, they request the Magistrate that the arrest warrant should be converted into a bailable warrant in the terms of Section 70(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.
The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate where bye in its order dated September 3rd, 20-20 refuse to convert the non-bailable warrant to bailable warrant on the premises that he does not have the power to convert the non-bailable warrant to be bailable and as it would amount to refuse to recall it earlier order which is bad in the terms of Section 362 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and he for the issued arrest warrants on the same day.
The Counsel submitted before the high court the issue regarding the tenure of the anticipatory bail which has been decided in the case of Sushil Agarwal and others v. State of NCT Delhi by the five-judge bench and it has been held that anticipatory bail granted by the court shall continue till the end of the trial.
The High Court after listening to the matter said that "The action of the learned magistrate from the date, it has taken cognizance and up to the passing of the impugned order dated September 3rd, 20-20 has acted in a clear violation of the order passed by the high court after having granted anticipatory bail."
The court also said that " there was no occasion for the learned magistrate to have issued the arrest warrant and such courses or power was not available within in spite of having been to it learned magistrate has insisted on the issue of the arrest warrant and has also seen that the provision of section 362 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot come into operation while deciding the application under section 70 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
In the view of aforesaid the High Court allowed the petition and was the order dated September 9, 2020, of the magistrate.
Lastly, it was directed by the High Court that "A copy of disorder be sent to the registrar vigilance for placing it before the concerned committee to decide what course of action is required to be done as against such Magistrate."
