KRISHAN KUMAR A v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: R. Banumathi
Vineet Saran
Judgment Date: 2018-08-28
Court Decision / Holding: The impugned High Court order is set aside for want of hearing to the appellant; the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration with directions to grant sufficient opportunity to the appellant and to the prosecutrix and to decide the matter expeditiously in accordance with law. The appeal is disposed of.
Final Disposition: Appeal disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Krishan Kumar A

Respondents

The State of Rajasthan
ANR

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Mr. Tripurari Rai
• Mr. Abhishek Gupta

Counsels for Respondents

• Mr. Anish Maheshwari

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Supreme Court judgment concerns Criminal Appeal No. 1088 of 2018 arising from a High Court bail application in Rajasthan. The High Court set aside the trial court’s order of acquittal of the appellant and remitted the matter for a de novo trial on the ground that the prosecutrix had not been examined before the trial court. The appellant contends that the High Court acted during the pendency of a bail application filed by another person and, crucially, without issuing notice or affording him an opportunity of hearing, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The appellant’s submissions are that a full trial had produced the acquittal and that interfering with that acquittal via a bail application, without due process, was improper. The Court heard counsel for the appellant, the applicant-prosecutrix, and the State. The Supreme Court agreed that the High Court’s order was invalid for want of hearing, and it set aside the impugned order. The matter was remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration, with directions to grant sufficient opportunity to the appellant and to the prosecutrix and to decide the matter expeditiously in accordance with law. The appeal is disposed of with a directive to preserve due process and fairness in subsequent proceedings.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant argued that the High Court, while considering a bail application filed by another person, set aside the acquittal without issuing notice or affording him a hearing. The acquittal was based on absence of evidence after a full trial; High Court interference without hearing violates due process and cannot stand.

Contentions of Respondents

The State’s counsel participated in the proceedings; the High Court’s order was intended to ensure fair trial by addressing the issues raised in the bail application. The exact submissions for the State are not detailed in the provided excerpt.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

[2018] 10 S.C.R. 869 869 ## KRISHAN KUMAR A v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 1088 of 2018) AUGUST 28, 2018 ## **[R. BANUMATHI AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]** _Criminal Law – By impugned order, High Court set aside the order of acquittal of appellant and remitted the matter to trial court for denovo trial only on the ground that the prosecutrix was not examined before the trial court – Grievance of appellant was that the impugned order was passed by High Court while considering bail application by another person and that too without issuing notice to the appellant – Held: Since no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the appellant, the impugned order is set aside and matter is remitted to High Court for fresh consideration – Appeal disposed of._ B C D CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1088 of 2018. From the Judgment and Order dated 24.08.2015 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3953 of 2015. E Vikrant Yadav, Tripurari Rai, Piyush Kant Roy, M. C. Dhingra, Anish Maheshwari, Yunus Malik, Milind Kumar, Abhishek Gupta, Advs. for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by **BANUMATHI, J.** 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal arises out of an order dated 24.08.2015 of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3953 of 2015 in which the High Court has set aside the order of acquittal of the appellant and remitted the matter back to the trial court for _de novo_ trial only on the ground that the prosecutrix was not examined before the trial court. F G 3. We have heard Mr. Tripurari Rai, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. Abhishek Gupta, learned counsel for the applicantprosecutrix and Mr. Anish Maheshwari, learned counsel for the respondent-State. H 869 870 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 10 S.C.R. A 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the High Court while considering the bail application in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3953 of 2015 filed by one Satish, even without issuing notice to the appellant herein who was acquitted by the trial court on the ground of absence of evidence, chose to set aside the order of acquittal. It was further submitted that order of acquittal was recorded by the trial B court after a full-fledged trial and while so setting aside the acquittal the High Court should have given an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. A 5. We find force in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant. At this juncture, Mr. Abhishek Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the applicant-prosecutrix, has submitted that against the C order of acquittal of the appellant, the prosecutrix has also filed an appeal i.e. S.B. Crl. Misc. Application NO.198 of 2016 in S.B. Criminal Appeal No.802 of 2016 which is stated to be pending before the High Court. 6. In such view of the matter and since opportunity has not been afforded to the appellant, the impugned order is set aside and the matter D is remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. 7. We request the High Court to afford sufficient opportunity to the appellant herein in S.B. Crl. Appeal No.802 of 2016 and to the prosecutrix while considering the matter afresh and decide the same E expeditiously in accordance with law. Devika Gujral Appeal disposed of. F G H