Full Text
Translation output
s
.— , 1
$-10, 11 & 12 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date ofDecision: January 06, 2015 (i) CRL.M.C 3988/2014
BADAL Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.S. Dalai, Advocate
.— , 1
$-10, 11 & 12 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date ofDecision: January 06, 2015 (i) CRL.M.C 3988/2014
BADAL Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.S. Dalai, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE & ANR Respondents
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with Inspector M.R. Meena (ii) CRL.M.C 3991/2014
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with Inspector M.R. Meena (ii) CRL.M.C 3991/2014
VERSUS
Thi'ough: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional (iii) CRL.M.C. 3992/2014
VERSUS
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional CRLMC. 3988, 3991 & 3992 of2014 Page 1
2015:DHC:10593
2015:DHC:10593
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
In the above captioned three petitions, cancellation of bail is sought. Respondent-accused have been granted bail vide order of 8*^
August, 2014 in FIR No.319/2014 under Sections 306/309/34 of IPG registered at P.S. Sector-23, Dwarka,New Delhi.
Since these three petitions arise out of one FIR and the ground on which cancellation of bail is sought is common, therefore, these three petitions were taken up together for hearing and by this common judgment, they are being disposed oftogether.
At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner had submitted that father of petitioner was a Safai Karamchari, who was working under the respondents-accused and on account of demand of bribe and harassment at the hands of accused, he committed suicide and the FIR in question is based upon the dying declaration of the deceased and grant of pre-arrest bail to respondents-accusedis unjustified.
Attention ofthis Court was drawn to the order of8'*' August, 2014 vide which respondents-accused have been granted bail with particular reference to following observations: -
"Even if, presuming that the alleged acts of the applicants/accused caused harassment to the deceased even then the mere harassment is not sufficientto bring the act of the accused within ambit ofSection 306IPC"
Lastly, it was contended on behalf of petitioner that the above
CRL.M.C. 3988, 3991 & 3992 of2014 Page 2 observations are uncalled for and if these observations are allov^^ed to remain, then respondents-accused would be entitled to discharge in this
FIR case,which would be unjustified.
Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State submitted that the afore-noted observations are infact uncalled for.
The parameters, which govern the cancellation of bail, as reiterated by Apex Court in Kanwar Singh Meena v. State ofRajasthan, (2012) 12 see 180, are as under: -
"While cancelling the bail under Section 439(2) ofthe
Code, the primary considerations which weigh with the court are whether the accused is likely to tamper with the evidence or interfere or attempt to interfere with the due course ofjustice or evade the due course ofjustice. But, that is not all. The High Court or the Sessions Court can cancel the bail even in cases where the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage ofjustice. If the court granting bail ignores relevant materials indicating primafacie involvement ofthe accused or takes into account irrelevant material, which has no relevance to the question of grant of bail to the accused, the High Court or the
Sessions Court would be justified in cancelling the bail.
Such orders are against the well-recognised principles underlying the power to grant bail. Such orders are legally infirm and vulnerable leading to miscarriage ofjustice and absence of supervening circumstances such as the propensity of the accused to tamper with the evidence, to flee from justice, etc. would not deter the court from cancelling the bail. The High Court or the Sessions Court is bound to cancel such bail orders particularly when they are passed releasing the accused involved in heinous crimes because they ultimately result in weakening the prosecution
CRL.M.C. 3988. 3991 & 3992 of2014 Page 3 case andhave adverse impact on the society. Needless tosay that though the powers of this Court are much wider, this
Courtis equally guidedby the aboveprinciples in thematter ofgrant or cancellation ofbail. "
Upon hearing and on perusal ofthe impugned order of 8^August, 2014 and the FIR of this case as well as the status report, I find that the afore-noted observations are prematurely made and so, from the order of
8^ August, 2014, afore-noted observations are deleted. However, by deletion of the afore-said observations, the fate of impugned order will not change for the reason that on perusal of the FIR of this case, I find that the grant of pre-arrest bail does not resultin miscarriage ofjustice.
With aforesaid directions, thesethreepetitions are disposed of
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 06, 2015 s CRL.M.C. 3988, 3991 &3992 of2014 Page4
In the above captioned three petitions, cancellation of bail is sought. Respondent-accused have been granted bail vide order of 8*^
August, 2014 in FIR No.319/2014 under Sections 306/309/34 of IPG registered at P.S. Sector-23, Dwarka,New Delhi.
Since these three petitions arise out of one FIR and the ground on which cancellation of bail is sought is common, therefore, these three petitions were taken up together for hearing and by this common judgment, they are being disposed oftogether.
At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner had submitted that father of petitioner was a Safai Karamchari, who was working under the respondents-accused and on account of demand of bribe and harassment at the hands of accused, he committed suicide and the FIR in question is based upon the dying declaration of the deceased and grant of pre-arrest bail to respondents-accusedis unjustified.
Attention ofthis Court was drawn to the order of8'*' August, 2014 vide which respondents-accused have been granted bail with particular reference to following observations: -
"Even if, presuming that the alleged acts of the applicants/accused caused harassment to the deceased even then the mere harassment is not sufficientto bring the act of the accused within ambit ofSection 306IPC"
Lastly, it was contended on behalf of petitioner that the above
CRL.M.C. 3988, 3991 & 3992 of2014 Page 2 observations are uncalled for and if these observations are allov^^ed to remain, then respondents-accused would be entitled to discharge in this
FIR case,which would be unjustified.
Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State submitted that the afore-noted observations are infact uncalled for.
The parameters, which govern the cancellation of bail, as reiterated by Apex Court in Kanwar Singh Meena v. State ofRajasthan, (2012) 12 see 180, are as under: -
"While cancelling the bail under Section 439(2) ofthe
Code, the primary considerations which weigh with the court are whether the accused is likely to tamper with the evidence or interfere or attempt to interfere with the due course ofjustice or evade the due course ofjustice. But, that is not all. The High Court or the Sessions Court can cancel the bail even in cases where the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage ofjustice. If the court granting bail ignores relevant materials indicating primafacie involvement ofthe accused or takes into account irrelevant material, which has no relevance to the question of grant of bail to the accused, the High Court or the
Sessions Court would be justified in cancelling the bail.
Such orders are against the well-recognised principles underlying the power to grant bail. Such orders are legally infirm and vulnerable leading to miscarriage ofjustice and absence of supervening circumstances such as the propensity of the accused to tamper with the evidence, to flee from justice, etc. would not deter the court from cancelling the bail. The High Court or the Sessions Court is bound to cancel such bail orders particularly when they are passed releasing the accused involved in heinous crimes because they ultimately result in weakening the prosecution
CRL.M.C. 3988. 3991 & 3992 of2014 Page 3 case andhave adverse impact on the society. Needless tosay that though the powers of this Court are much wider, this
Courtis equally guidedby the aboveprinciples in thematter ofgrant or cancellation ofbail. "
Upon hearing and on perusal ofthe impugned order of 8^August, 2014 and the FIR of this case as well as the status report, I find that the afore-noted observations are prematurely made and so, from the order of
8^ August, 2014, afore-noted observations are deleted. However, by deletion of the afore-said observations, the fate of impugned order will not change for the reason that on perusal of the FIR of this case, I find that the grant of pre-arrest bail does not resultin miscarriage ofjustice.
With aforesaid directions, thesethreepetitions are disposed of
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 06, 2015 s CRL.M.C. 3988, 3991 &3992 of2014 Page4