NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL  NO(S).   1268/2018

(ARISING FROM SLP (CRL) NOS.391/2018)

PRAKASH CHAND MEENA                                APPELLANT(S)

                               VERSUS

THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.            RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellant approached this Court aggrieved by

the denial of protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in

respect of FIR No.202 dated 05.10.2017 registered at

Police Station Banipark, District Jaipur (West).

3. This Court, on 23.01.2018, passed the following

order:-

“Issue notice.

In  the  event  of  the  petitioner  being

arrested in connection with FIR No.202 dated

05.10.2017  registered  at  Police  Station

Banipark, District Jaipur (West), he shall be

released on execution of bond for a sum of

Rs.1,00,000/-  (Rupees  One  Lac)  with  two

solvent sureties for the like amount.

We  make  it  clear  that  this  order  is

passed  subject  to  other  conditions  under

1

Section  438(2)  of  the  Cr.P.C.  and  the

petitioner  shall  cooperate  with  the

investigation.”

4. We are informed that the investigation has been

completed and the final report has been filed.  The

Court has taken cognizance.  The appellant has been

summoned.   Now  the  case  is  at  the  stage  of

consideration of charge.  In the meanwhile, by order

dated 15.02.2018, it appears the petitioner has been

released  on  regular  bail  by  the  Trial  Court,

apparently on the basis that the appellant has been

granted anticipatory bail by this Court.  On going

through the order dated 15.02.2018, we do not find

any  other  consideration.   Since  the  matter  is

referred to a larger Bench, we do not propose to deal

with the issue any further as to whether the Trial

Court could have granted regular bail solely based on

the protection granted by this Court.

5. However, we make it clear that it will be open to

the de fact complainant to approach the Trial Court

to modify the conditions of bail.

6. Without prejudice to such liberty, this appeal is

disposed of.

7. Learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  de  facto

complainant  submits  that  orders  may  be  passed

compelling the appellant to make appropriate deposit

before the Trial Court in view of the conduct of the

appellant and the quantum involved.

8. We do not think that it will be appropriate for

us to go into this question.  It will be open to the

de facto complainant to approach the Trial Court.

2

9. Pending  applications,  if  any,  shall  stand

disposed of.

.......................J.               [KURIAN JOSEPH]  

.......................J.               [S. ABDUL NAZEER]  

NEW DELHI; OCTOBER 09, 2018.

3