Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 30.04.2024
STATE ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Aman Usman, APP
Through: Mr.L.K. Singh, Adv. (through VC)
JUDGMENT
1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the Order dated 29.06.2021 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Order’) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-03, Shahdara-District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’) in Bail Application Registration No.2030/2021, titled as State v. Rocky, releasing the applicant / respondent herein on bail in FIR No.08/2020 registered at Police Station: Crime Branch, for offence under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, ‘NDPS Act’).
2. The learned APP points out that the learned Trial Court has relied upon extraneous circumstances to release the applicant on bail. He submits that, therefore, the Impugned Order releasing the applicant on bail cannot be sustained.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the learned Trial Court has formed a satisfaction under Section 37 of the NDPS Act for releasing the applicant on bail. He submits that the same cannot be faulted and the Court cannot exercise appellate jurisdiction over the same.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.
5. In Deepak Yadav v. State of U.P., (2022) 8 SCC 559, the Supreme Court has discussed on the law regarding the cancellation of the bail granted to the accused, by observing as under:-
(iv) possibility of the accused absconding;
(v) likelihood of/actual misuse of bail;
(vi) likelihood of the accused tampering with the evidence or threatening witnesses.
33. It is no doubt true that cancellation of bail cannot be limited to the occurrence of supervening circumstances. This Court certainly has the inherent powers and discretion to cancel the bail of an accused even in the absence of supervening circumstances. Following are the illustrative circumstances where the bail can be cancelled:
33.1. Where the court granting bail takes into account irrelevant material of substantial nature and not trivial nature while ignoring relevant material on record.
33.2. Where the court granting bail overlooks the influential position of the accused in comparison to the victim of abuse or the witnesses especially when there is prima facie misuse of position and power over the victim.
33.3. Where the past criminal record and conduct of the accused is completely ignored while granting bail.
33.4. Where bail has been granted on untenable grounds.
33.5. Where serious discrepancies are found in the order granting bail thereby causing prejudice to justice.
33.6. Where the grant of bail was not appropriate in the first place given the very serious nature of the charges against the accused which disentitles him for bail and thus cannot be justified.
33.7. When the order granting bail is apparently whimsical, capricious and perverse in the facts of the given case.
34. In Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. (2014) 16 SCC 508, the accused was granted bail by the High Court. In an appeal against the order of the High Court, a two-Judge Bench of this Court examined the precedents on the principles that guide grant of bail and observed as under:
35. This Court in Mahipal Kumar, held that:
bail. An appellate court is thus required to consider whether the order granting bail suffers from a non-application of mind or is not borne out from a prima facie view of the evidence on record. It is thus necessary for this Court to assess whether, on the basis of the evidentiary record, there existed a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the crime, also taking into account the seriousness of the crime and the severity of the punishment.”
36. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Prakash Kadam v. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta held that:
19. In our opinion, there is no absolute rule that once bail is granted to the accused then it can only be cancelled if there is likelihood of misuse of bail. That factor, though no doubt important, is not the only factor. There are several other factors also which may be seen while deciding to cancel the bail.”
6. In the present case, the learned Trial Court has passed a detailed order for his satisfaction that the parameters under Section 37 of the NDPS Act have been made out by the respondent for being released on bail. The respondent has been on bail since 29.06.2021. I am informed by the learned APP, on instructions from the IO, that the trial is still at the stage of framing of charges. Therefore, the trial has, even proceeded. It is also not stated that the delay in trial is for any reason which is attributed to the respondent.
7. In view of the above peculiar facts of the present case, I do not deem it appropriate to exercise my powers under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C..
8. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
9. Needless to state, any observation made by the learned Trial Court in the Impugned Order will, in no manner, influence the learned Trial Court while adjudicating the Criminal Trial before it.