Full Text
Translation output
Bail Application No.1501/2012 Page 1 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN. 1501/2012
LOVESH SEN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.C. Munjal, Advocate
BAIL APPLN. 1501/2012
LOVESH SEN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.C. Munjal, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Ravi, Police Station Aman Vihar
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Ravi, Police Station Aman Vihar
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O R D E R 31.01.2013
Neither anticipatory bail nor regular bail can be claimed as a matter of right. The judicial discretion conferred upon the courts is to be properly exercised after proper application of mind to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of bail or not. Merely because the custody of accused is prolonged one, it would not by itself entitle the said accused to bail as the gravity of offence has to be also considered.
In the aforesaid background, I have heard this application for bail in FIR NO. 179/2011, under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B of the
I.P.C., registered at Police Station Vasant Kunj (N), New Delhi, which has been filed as the hearing on the point of charge is being deferred for want of CFSL Report of co-accused. However, according to petitioner’s counsel, CFSL Report qua the petitioner exonerates him and no loss was
2013:DHC:508 Bail Application No.1501/2012 Page 2 suffered on account of alleged cheating and the eviction suit filed against petitioner has been already dismissed in the year 2005 but still at the behest of the complainant party, petitioner and his family members were not allowed to enter the complainant’s premises, which was on rent with petitioner and on account of previous litigation with the complainant party, seven false cases have been foisted upon petitioner and out of them, in three cases of theft, petitioner has been already acquitted. Thus, it is vehemently urged on behalf of petitioner that he needs bail to defend himself at trial, which is going to be prolonged one.
The opposition to this application by learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent-State is on the ground that the involvement of petitioner is there in eight or nine matters and he is the bad character of the area and there is reasonable apprehension of his tempering with the evidence, if released on bail. It is also pointed out by learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-State that CFSL Report qua the co- accused would be made available on the next date fixed i.e. on 4th February, 2013 before the trial court and thereafter, trial of this case can be expedited and that it is not a fit case for grant of bail to petitioner.
Learned counsel for petitioner refutes the stand of Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent –State by submitting that petitioner is not a previous convict and his signatures were obtained on blank papers under duress and the prolonged detention of petitioner is punitive and so, he deserves bail.
Upon hearing and on consideration of submissions advanced, the
Status Report filed and the impugned order declining bail to petitioner, I
Bail Application No.1501/2012 Page 3 find that not only gravity of offence but even apprehension of petitioner tampering with the evidence and of his absconding, if released on bail, are the factor which persuades this Court to not to grant bail to petitioner at this stage.
This application for bail is rejected while directing the trial court to expedite the hearing on the point of charge and if charge is framed, then to give short dates to record evidence of complainant/ first-informant of
FIR in question as also public witnesses, so that petitioner can apply for bail thereafter.
With aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of, while refraining to express any opinion on the merits of this case.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 31, 2013 rs
Neither anticipatory bail nor regular bail can be claimed as a matter of right. The judicial discretion conferred upon the courts is to be properly exercised after proper application of mind to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of bail or not. Merely because the custody of accused is prolonged one, it would not by itself entitle the said accused to bail as the gravity of offence has to be also considered.
In the aforesaid background, I have heard this application for bail in FIR NO. 179/2011, under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B of the
I.P.C., registered at Police Station Vasant Kunj (N), New Delhi, which has been filed as the hearing on the point of charge is being deferred for want of CFSL Report of co-accused. However, according to petitioner’s counsel, CFSL Report qua the petitioner exonerates him and no loss was
2013:DHC:508 Bail Application No.1501/2012 Page 2 suffered on account of alleged cheating and the eviction suit filed against petitioner has been already dismissed in the year 2005 but still at the behest of the complainant party, petitioner and his family members were not allowed to enter the complainant’s premises, which was on rent with petitioner and on account of previous litigation with the complainant party, seven false cases have been foisted upon petitioner and out of them, in three cases of theft, petitioner has been already acquitted. Thus, it is vehemently urged on behalf of petitioner that he needs bail to defend himself at trial, which is going to be prolonged one.
The opposition to this application by learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent-State is on the ground that the involvement of petitioner is there in eight or nine matters and he is the bad character of the area and there is reasonable apprehension of his tempering with the evidence, if released on bail. It is also pointed out by learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-State that CFSL Report qua the co- accused would be made available on the next date fixed i.e. on 4th February, 2013 before the trial court and thereafter, trial of this case can be expedited and that it is not a fit case for grant of bail to petitioner.
Learned counsel for petitioner refutes the stand of Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent –State by submitting that petitioner is not a previous convict and his signatures were obtained on blank papers under duress and the prolonged detention of petitioner is punitive and so, he deserves bail.
Upon hearing and on consideration of submissions advanced, the
Status Report filed and the impugned order declining bail to petitioner, I
Bail Application No.1501/2012 Page 3 find that not only gravity of offence but even apprehension of petitioner tampering with the evidence and of his absconding, if released on bail, are the factor which persuades this Court to not to grant bail to petitioner at this stage.
This application for bail is rejected while directing the trial court to expedite the hearing on the point of charge and if charge is framed, then to give short dates to record evidence of complainant/ first-informant of
FIR in question as also public witnesses, so that petitioner can apply for bail thereafter.
With aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of, while refraining to express any opinion on the merits of this case.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 31, 2013 rs
JUDGMENT