Full Text
Translation output
Crl.M.Cs.No.3415 and 3761 of 2013 Page 1 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
(i) + CRL.M.C. 3415/2013 AMRIK SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jagjit Singh, Mr. G.Rajpoot & Mr. Ajai K. Bhatia, Advocates
(i) + CRL.M.C. 3415/2013 AMRIK SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jagjit Singh, Mr. G.Rajpoot & Mr. Ajai K. Bhatia, Advocates
VERSUS
STATE & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with SI
Sehdev, PS Amar Colony Mr. R.M.Tufail & Mr. Vishal R.
Shispal, Advocates for respondent No.2 (ii) + CRL.M.C. 3761/2013
H S GILL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.M.Tufail & Mr. Vishal R.
Shispal, Advocates
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with SI
Sehdev, PS Amar Colony Mr. R.M.Tufail & Mr. Vishal R.
Shispal, Advocates for respondent No.2 (ii) + CRL.M.C. 3761/2013
H S GILL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.M.Tufail & Mr. Vishal R.
Shispal, Advocates
VERSUS
STATE & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with SI
Sehdev, PS Amar Colony Mr. Jagjit Singh, Mr. G.Rajpoot &
Mr. Ajai K. Bhatia, Advocates for respondents No.2-4
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with SI
Sehdev, PS Amar Colony Mr. Jagjit Singh, Mr. G.Rajpoot &
Mr. Ajai K. Bhatia, Advocates for respondents No.2-4
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O R D E R 12.09.2013
Crl.M.A.No.13658/2013 in Crl.M.C.No.3761/2013
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
2013:DHC:4620 Crl.M.Cs.No.3415 and 3761 of 2013 Page 2
Crl.M.C.No.3415/2013 & Crl.M.A.No.12561/2013 Crl.M.C.No.3761/2013
In the above-captioned first petition, petitioner-Amrik Singh assails trial court’s court of 31st October, 2012 vide which petitioner-Amrik
Singh’s regular bail has been cancelled as it was found by the trial court that he had extended threats to second respondent-H.S.Gill, who is a lawyer by profession. Petitioner-Amrik Singh had filed a revision petition against aforesaid trial court order, which was withdrawn by him as is evident from order of 30th July, 2013 (Annexure A-6).
In the above-captioned second petition trial court’s order of 31st October, 2012 refusing to cancel bail of respondent No.3-Jagjit Kaur and respondent No.4-Gurdeep Singh @ Lucky who are wife and son of respondent No.2-Amrik Singh is assailed and cancellation of bail of respondent No.2-Amrik Singh is also sought on the ground that he had concealed about the earlier rejection of his bail application. Cancellation of bail granted to respondents Jagjit Kaur and Gurdeep Singh @ Lucky is sought on the ground that they had not disclosed their correct address at the time of filling-up of their bail bonds.
Since the order impugned in the above-captioned two petitions is common and the parties are also common in these two petitions, therefore, both these petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
Learned counsel for petitioner-Amrik Singh assails the impugned order on the ground that a threat was allegedly extended by petitioner-
Amrik Singh on 20th April, 2012 to respondent-H.S.Gill, who had made a complaint about it belatedly on 2nd May, 2012 with an ulterior motive.
Crl.M.Cs.No.3415 and 3761 of 2013 Page 3 During the course of hearing of above-captioned first petition, it was pointed out by learned counsel for petitioner-Amrik Singh that respondent-H.S.Gill was the lawyer of petitioner-Amrik Singh and there was a loan transaction between them and in lieu of loan taken by petitioner-Amrik Singh, some security documents were handed over to respondent-H.S.Gill. It is pointed out that when the matter was compromised between them, respondent-H.S.Gill had withdrawn his complaint made under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and it is so evident from trial court’s order of 4th December, 2009, which is on record.
It was further pointed out by learned counsel for petitioner-Amrik-
Singh that the first floor of the subject premises had been sealed by MCD, who had got an FIR registered against petitioner-Amrik singh for the offence under Section 188/448 of IPC and respondent-H.S.Gill in order to settle his scores had got the offences of cheating etc. added in the aforesaid FIR, in which charge-sheet has been already filed. Regarding the non-disclosure of earlier rejection of the bail application, it was submitted by learned counsel for petitioner-Amrik Singh that petitioner-
Amrik Singh was in custody and his wife is an illiterate lady and the grant of bail was on account of compromise and so the earlier rejection of the bail application on the ground of non-disclosure of is of no consequence and so, the impugned order cancelling the bail of petitioner-Amrik Singh deserves to be quashed.
On the other hand learned counsel for second respondent-H.S.Gill has supported the impugned order and has maintained that apart from extending threats, another valid ground on which bail of petitioner-Amrik
Singh ought to have been cancelled is non-disclosure of earlier rejection
Crl.M.Cs.No.3415 and 3761 of 2013 Page 4 of his bail application and furnishing of wrong address by respondents-
Jagjit Kaur and Gurdeep Singh @ Lucky in the above captioned second petition is a good ground to cancel their bail as well.
Mr. Jagjit Singh, Advocate appears on behalf of respondents-Jagjit
Kaur and Gurdeep Singh @ Lucky in above-captioned second petition and submits that their previous counsel had inadvertently disclosed the address of the disputed premises and in the impugned order it is noted that the fresh address stands disclosed and respondents-Jagjit Kaur and
Gurdeep Singh ought not to be made suffer on account of lapse of their counsel.
Charge-sheet for the offences under Sections 188/448/420/468/471/380/120-B IPC in FIR No. 21/07 registered at
Police Station Amar Colony, Delhi has been already filed and common impugned order arises out of it.
After having heard both the sides in the above-captioned two petitions, I find no plausible explanation is coming forth as to why complainant-H.S.Gill, who is a lawyer by profession had not promptly reported the matter regarding the alleged threat extended to him. Such a view is being taken in view of the fact that complainant-H.S.Gill was earlier the lawyer of petitioner-accused Amrik Singh. Otherwise also, in the face of the trial court’s order of 4th December, 2009, which notes that a compromise was arrived at by the complainant-H.S.Gill with petitioner/accused-Amrik Singh, but still the parties are fighting tooth and nail especially when the initial complaint by MCD against petitioner-
Amrik Singh is of obtaining a forged “No Objection Certificate” in respect of the property in question.
Crl.M.Cs.No.3415 and 3761 of 2013 Page 5 Be that as it may. Since the charge-sheet has been filed and the grounds on which cancellation of bail of aforesaid three accused persons in these petitions is sought, are found to be not sound, therefore, impugned order qua petitioner-Amrik Singh is quashed and it is directed that bail bonds of Amrik Singh be restored. Resultantly, above-captioned first petition is allowed and second petition is dismissed.
Both these petitions are accordingly disposed of, while not commenting upon merits of this case, lest it may prejudice either side at trial.
(SUNIL GAUR)
Judge SEPTEMBER 12, 2013 vn
Crl.M.A.No.13658/2013 in Crl.M.C.No.3761/2013
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
2013:DHC:4620 Crl.M.Cs.No.3415 and 3761 of 2013 Page 2
Crl.M.C.No.3415/2013 & Crl.M.A.No.12561/2013 Crl.M.C.No.3761/2013
In the above-captioned first petition, petitioner-Amrik Singh assails trial court’s court of 31st October, 2012 vide which petitioner-Amrik
Singh’s regular bail has been cancelled as it was found by the trial court that he had extended threats to second respondent-H.S.Gill, who is a lawyer by profession. Petitioner-Amrik Singh had filed a revision petition against aforesaid trial court order, which was withdrawn by him as is evident from order of 30th July, 2013 (Annexure A-6).
In the above-captioned second petition trial court’s order of 31st October, 2012 refusing to cancel bail of respondent No.3-Jagjit Kaur and respondent No.4-Gurdeep Singh @ Lucky who are wife and son of respondent No.2-Amrik Singh is assailed and cancellation of bail of respondent No.2-Amrik Singh is also sought on the ground that he had concealed about the earlier rejection of his bail application. Cancellation of bail granted to respondents Jagjit Kaur and Gurdeep Singh @ Lucky is sought on the ground that they had not disclosed their correct address at the time of filling-up of their bail bonds.
Since the order impugned in the above-captioned two petitions is common and the parties are also common in these two petitions, therefore, both these petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
Learned counsel for petitioner-Amrik Singh assails the impugned order on the ground that a threat was allegedly extended by petitioner-
Amrik Singh on 20th April, 2012 to respondent-H.S.Gill, who had made a complaint about it belatedly on 2nd May, 2012 with an ulterior motive.
Crl.M.Cs.No.3415 and 3761 of 2013 Page 3 During the course of hearing of above-captioned first petition, it was pointed out by learned counsel for petitioner-Amrik Singh that respondent-H.S.Gill was the lawyer of petitioner-Amrik Singh and there was a loan transaction between them and in lieu of loan taken by petitioner-Amrik Singh, some security documents were handed over to respondent-H.S.Gill. It is pointed out that when the matter was compromised between them, respondent-H.S.Gill had withdrawn his complaint made under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and it is so evident from trial court’s order of 4th December, 2009, which is on record.
It was further pointed out by learned counsel for petitioner-Amrik-
Singh that the first floor of the subject premises had been sealed by MCD, who had got an FIR registered against petitioner-Amrik singh for the offence under Section 188/448 of IPC and respondent-H.S.Gill in order to settle his scores had got the offences of cheating etc. added in the aforesaid FIR, in which charge-sheet has been already filed. Regarding the non-disclosure of earlier rejection of the bail application, it was submitted by learned counsel for petitioner-Amrik Singh that petitioner-
Amrik Singh was in custody and his wife is an illiterate lady and the grant of bail was on account of compromise and so the earlier rejection of the bail application on the ground of non-disclosure of is of no consequence and so, the impugned order cancelling the bail of petitioner-Amrik Singh deserves to be quashed.
On the other hand learned counsel for second respondent-H.S.Gill has supported the impugned order and has maintained that apart from extending threats, another valid ground on which bail of petitioner-Amrik
Singh ought to have been cancelled is non-disclosure of earlier rejection
Crl.M.Cs.No.3415 and 3761 of 2013 Page 4 of his bail application and furnishing of wrong address by respondents-
Jagjit Kaur and Gurdeep Singh @ Lucky in the above captioned second petition is a good ground to cancel their bail as well.
Mr. Jagjit Singh, Advocate appears on behalf of respondents-Jagjit
Kaur and Gurdeep Singh @ Lucky in above-captioned second petition and submits that their previous counsel had inadvertently disclosed the address of the disputed premises and in the impugned order it is noted that the fresh address stands disclosed and respondents-Jagjit Kaur and
Gurdeep Singh ought not to be made suffer on account of lapse of their counsel.
Charge-sheet for the offences under Sections 188/448/420/468/471/380/120-B IPC in FIR No. 21/07 registered at
Police Station Amar Colony, Delhi has been already filed and common impugned order arises out of it.
After having heard both the sides in the above-captioned two petitions, I find no plausible explanation is coming forth as to why complainant-H.S.Gill, who is a lawyer by profession had not promptly reported the matter regarding the alleged threat extended to him. Such a view is being taken in view of the fact that complainant-H.S.Gill was earlier the lawyer of petitioner-accused Amrik Singh. Otherwise also, in the face of the trial court’s order of 4th December, 2009, which notes that a compromise was arrived at by the complainant-H.S.Gill with petitioner/accused-Amrik Singh, but still the parties are fighting tooth and nail especially when the initial complaint by MCD against petitioner-
Amrik Singh is of obtaining a forged “No Objection Certificate” in respect of the property in question.
Crl.M.Cs.No.3415 and 3761 of 2013 Page 5 Be that as it may. Since the charge-sheet has been filed and the grounds on which cancellation of bail of aforesaid three accused persons in these petitions is sought, are found to be not sound, therefore, impugned order qua petitioner-Amrik Singh is quashed and it is directed that bail bonds of Amrik Singh be restored. Resultantly, above-captioned first petition is allowed and second petition is dismissed.
Both these petitions are accordingly disposed of, while not commenting upon merits of this case, lest it may prejudice either side at trial.
(SUNIL GAUR)
Judge SEPTEMBER 12, 2013 vn
JUDGMENT