Antecedents Missing From Case Diary Are IO's Lapse, Not Accused's False Statement: Rajasthan High Court Refuses Bail Cancellation

An Additional Sessions Judge at Khetri granted the accused bail on 06.07.2021, noting that no previous criminal record appeared from the case diary (paras 1, 5). The complainant, at whose petrol pump the alleged offence occurred, sought cancellation under Section 439(2) CrPC, arguing that the accused was a habitual offender with about 21 registered or pending cases, three of them at the same pump, had absconded for nine months and had threatened witnesses after bail (para 3). The accused's counsel replied that no false statement was made at the bail hearing, that he had been acquitted in 12 cases and convicted in none, and that the complainant, who bore enmity towards him, had lodged false cases (para 4).

Madan Gopal Vyas J. examined the bail order. Its second page recorded the accused's case, but none stating that no earlier case was registered against him; its finding that no previous record appeared from the case diary showed that the Sessions Court's view rested on the case diary (para 5). An investigating officer must attach to the case diary a list of any cases registered or pending against an accused. With 21 cases registered against this accused, the officer's failure to include that list was neglect and carelessness in the discharge of his duty (para 5). As the bail order recorded no claim by the accused that he had no earlier case, it could not be said that he made any false statement when bail was granted (para 6). The claim that the three earlier FIRs concerned the same petrol pump was incorrect: one of them recorded a different place of occurrence, and all three predated the present case (para 7). On the alleged threats, only a copy of a complaint to the police was produced; the police's conclusion, when and where any threat was made, and a supporting affidavit were all missing (para 8).