Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 09th JULY, 2021 IN THE MATTER OF:
MUDASSIR HABIB ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Advocate
Through Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP Mr. Sourabh Shaoukeen, Advocate for the complainant.
JUDGMENT
1. This petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C is for grant of interim bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 02/2021, dated 02.01.2021, registered at Police Station Crime Branch, for offences under Section 420,468,471,506,120B and 34 IPC, on the ground of HPC guidelines.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is in custody since 03.03.2021 and is squarely covered under clause II of the HPC guidelines dated 04.05.2021.
3. Notice has been issued on 18.06.2021. Status Report has been filed.
4. Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, learned APP for the State states that the HPC guidelines dated 04.05.2021 would not be applicable to the petitioner because 2021:DHC:2011 he is involved in one more case. She further states that cases investigated by the Crime Branch are excluded from the operation of the HPC guidelines.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the HPC guidelines dated 11.05.2021, the relevant portion reads as under: "If, the Under Trial Prisoner falling in one of the Eleven criteria laid down by this Committee in the Minutes of Meeting dated 4th May, 2021 and/or in any of the Two criteria laid down today hereinabove, has three or more criminal cases pending against him, then his case shall not be considered for grant of interim bail." The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the said resolution squarely covers the petitioner.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that a similar exclusion clause had been made in the earlier HPC guidelines also and when identical objections were raised, this Court, by an order dated 13.08.2020, had rejected those objections and had granted the benefit of HPC guidelines to the petitioner in Mohsin Khan v. State of NCT of Delhi, MANU/DE/1547/2020. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on para 11 and 12 of the said order which reads as under:
12. Apart from my judgment in Behruddin (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court has also granted interim bail, to an accused, against whom Section 147 of the IPC, inter alia, was invoked, in order dated 27th May, 2020 in Bail Application 275/2020 (Mayser v. State)” (emphasis supplied)
7. The petitioner, therefore, fulfils the requirements of the HPC guidelines dated 04.05.2021 and 11.05.2021 and is granted interim bail for 90 days from the date of his release on the following conditions: a) The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount, who should be a relative of the petitioner, to the satisfaction of Jail Superintendent/Duty Magistrate. b) The petitioner shall report to the concerned Police Station on every Monday, Wednesday and Saturday. c) The petitioner is directed to give all his mobile numbers to the Investigating Officer and keep them operational at all times. d) The petitioner is directed to provide his address to the IO and if he changes the address, he shall intimate the same to the IO. e) The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, tamper with evidence or try to influence the witnesses. f) The petitioner is directed to surrender on the expiry of the interim bail before the concerned Jail Superintendent. g) Violation of any of these conditions will result in the cancellation of the bail given to the petitioner and will also have a bearing on the future bail applications of the petitioner.
8. The petition is disposed of in the abovementioned terms.
9. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned Jail Superintendent.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J JULY 09, 2021