Archana Singh & Ors. v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr

1. These petitions relate to almost identical orders passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Vacation Judge), South-East District, on 29.12.2017 initially in FIR No.114/2016 of Police Station Economic Offences Wing (EOW) and later in FIR Nos. 116/2016 and 64/2016, both now being investigated by EOW, whereby Surender Kumar CRL.M.C. I53/20I8& conn. Matters Page 4 of[6] 2018:DHC:8452 'J Hooda, one of the accused persons in the case was admitted to bail, the said order having been later corrected by order dated 30.12.2017.

2. The State by these petitions has questioned the legality and propriety ofthe said orders, interalia, seeking to point outthegravity of the crimes involved. Similar is the contention raised by the petitioners inthe afore-mentioned petitions, their prayer also being, as inthe petitions ofthe State, for thebail orders to be cancelled.

3. During the course of hearing, it has been fairly conceded that the impugned orders do not even take note of the background facts nor deal with the submissions of either side, barring a general reference to the submissions of the State that the cases involved serious crimes, one of the submissions recorded in the first order about deposit of certain amount of money by or at the instance of accused having been later corrected to explain that there was no such deposit and instead there was aproofofavailability offunds shown to the Official Liquidator in context of cormected proceedings before the company court.

4. After some hearing, though learned senior counsel appearing for Surender Kumar Hooda vociferously argued that the petitioner's case for release on bail is founded on sound footing, also lamenting that the orders do not reflect her submissions, she fairly conceded that the impugned orders are non-speaking orders. She thus agreed, as is also agreed by the counsel on other side, that the impugned orders may be set aside and the matter relating to the prayer of Surender Kumar Hooda for he to be released on bail in the afore-mentioned CRL.M.C. 153/2018& conn, matters Page 5 of[6] 2018:DHC:8452 three cases be remitted to the concerned court of Sessions for fresh decision after hearing all sides and by passing a reasoned orderwhich can stand the muster of it being a judicial order. While the request to such effect is being granted and these petitions are being disposed of, in all fairness, the benefit of release on bail by the impugned orders may be extended to the accused as interim protection till fresh decision is taken by the Courtof Sessions. Ordered accordingly.

5. The parties shall appear before the concerned Additional Sessions Judge on 3'"'' August, 2018. Needless to add, as a consequence of this order, the applications for release on bail moved by Surender Kumar Hooda would stand revived on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge. Needless further to add, nothing observed herein will be construed as even remotely expressing opinion on the merits, of the case.

6. With the above observations and directions, the petitions and the applications filed therewith stand disposed of

7. It is hoped and expected that the Sessions court will deal with j the matters expeditiously and pass fresh orders at an early date, preferably within two months ofthe date mentioned above.

8. Dasti. JULY 26, 2018 srb CRL.M.C. 153/2018 &conn. Matters Page 6of[6]