Sameer Mehta v. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr

1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner/complainant seeks direction to cancel the bail of respondent no.2 in FIR No.676/2015 dated 09.09.2015 registered at Police Station Prasad Nagar for the offences punishable under sections 394/397/34 and 174A IPC.

2. The brief facts of the petition are that on 08.05.2015 at about 10.15 PM, the respondent no. 2 along with three other persons forcefully entered the office of the petitioner and by overpowering the petitioner, the respondent no.2 alongwith the other co-accused committed robbery. In order 2019:DHC:6979 to do the same, the respondent no. 2 along with other co-accused stabbed the petitioner with knife, poured liquid substance on his face to make him unconscious and further tied his hands and left him to die in his office as the petitioner was unconscious.

3. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the main motive behind such criminal action was to rob the money from the office of the petitioner, accordingly, the respondent no.2 along with his associates succeeded in their act and they robbed around Rs.18,50,000/- from the office of the petitioner. After committing the said offence, the respondent no.2 was absconding and declared as a proclaimed offender, thereafter, another case under section 174A IPC was registered against him. The respondent no.2 then approached the Trial Court for grant of bail on the basis of false and misleading grounds. The Trial Court vide its order dated 22.02.2017, wrongly granted bail to respondent no.2, thereby observing that the face of respondent no.2 was not clearly visible and by giving weightage to plea of alibi taken by respondent no.2.

4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits that the respondent no.2 after obtaining bail, threatened the petitioner to withdraw the criminal case against him and his associates. On 25.10.2017 when the petitioner was standing outside the court, the accused/respondent no.2 came to the petitioner and again asked him to withdraw the case. Accordingly, the complainant/petitioner reported the same to Police officials of Police Station, Subzi Mandi, Delhi and has given a written complaint to the SHO, consequently, FIR No.296 /2017 was registered at the aforesaid Police Station for the offence punishable under section 195A IPC. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Trial Court and filed an application for cancellation of bail of respondent no.2, however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 02.11.2018.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is continuous threat coming from respondent no.2 and the said fact was brought to the notice of the Trial Court and despite the fact that a case was registered against him under section 195A IPC, the Trial Court did not cancel the bail granted to respondent no. 2. Accordingly, prays to this Court that present petition may be allowed.

6. On the other hand, it is pertinent to mention here that the respondent no.2 appeared in person before this Court on 23.08.2019 and submitted that due to financial constraints, he was unable to engage a counsel and prayed that he may be provided a counsel from the legal aid to defend his case. Accordingly, this Court approached Mr.Anusashit Arya, who was present in court to defend respondent no.2 to which he agreed. Accordingly, he submitted that in the case under section 195A IPC, the respondent no.2 has been acquitted vide order dated 26.02.2019. The said fact has not been brought to the notice of the Court by the counsel for petitioner.

7. On perusal of the order dated 26.02.2019 mentioned above, it reveals, the Trial Court has observed as under:

8. In view of the opinion of the Trial Court, it seems that the petitioner had filed the complaint regarding threats by respondent no.2 for the purpose of seeking cancellation of bail of respondent no.2.

9. On cancellation of bail, Mr. Anushasit Arya has relied upon the case of Bhagirathsinh s/o Mahipat Singh Judeja vs. State of Gujarat: (1984) 1 SCC 284, wherein it has been held that “very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order seeking cancellation of the bail and the trend today is towards granting bail because it is now well-settled by a catena of decisions of this court that the power to grant bail is not to be exercised as if the punishment before trial is being imposed.”

10. Further relied upon the case of Dolat Ram & Ors. vs. State of Haryana: (1995) 1 SCC 349, whereby held that “rejection of bail in a nonbailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and delay with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted.”

11. Accordingly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court is of the opinion that cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the appellant therein for the reasons given by the High Court was not justified. Nothing has been brought to their notice either from which any inference may possibly be drawn that the appellants have in any manner, whatsoever, abused the concession of bail during the intervening period.