On 8th September, a bench of Delhi High Court consisting of Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar, while hearing a bail petition, held that in case where a person was unable to appear before trial court due to some unavoidable circumstances then he must have approached the concerned court stating the reason to show his bonafides as to why he failed to appear. However, in case where he does not approach the concerned court it shows the malafide intention of the party.

Facts of the case:

The present bail application had been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail where he was charged under Sections 21 NDPS Act, Section 14 of Foreigners Act and Section 174-A IPC registered at Police Station Crime Branch. Briefly stated, the facts of the case were that secret information was received by SI Karambir in the office of Narcotics Cell, Crime Branch, Delhi that one Nigerian National namely Mike staying in the area of Mehrauli, Delhi, is indulging in supply of Cocaine in Delhi and he would be coming to deliver a huge consignment of Cocaine to someone between 12:00 Midnight to 01:00 AM in the intervening night of 11/12.03.2015 at bus stand Panchkuian near R. K. Ashram Chowk, Delhi. The said Nigerian National came at the bus stand and started waiting for someone. After 3-4 minutes, when he started going toward R.K. Ashram, he was apprehended by SI Karmabir with the help of staff. The recovered transparent polythene was opened after removing the rubber band and the white powder was checked on Field Testing Kit and found to be Cocaine.

Contention of the petitioner:

The following contention has been submitted by the petitioner:

  1. It was submitted by the ld. counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner in the present case was arrested on 12.03.2015 u/s 21 NDPS and he was granted bail.
  2. It was submitted by the ld. Counsel for petitioner that the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation in the present case and no purpose would be served by keeping him in judicial custody.
  3. It was submitted that the ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the Petitioner was unable to appear before trial court due to some unavoidable circumstances as his sister expired due to prolonged illness.

Contention of the respondent:

Ld. APP for the state vehemently opposed the bail application on the following ground:

  1. It was submitted that during trial the petitioner had jumped bail and later on, he was declared Proclaimed offender by the Hon'ble Court.
  2. It was further submitted by ld. APP that, the petitioner is not having any permanent residence/address in Delhi or India and the petitioner did not co-operate during investigation and he also jumped the bail in the past and got indulged himself in crime of similar nature.
  3. It was further submitted by 1d. APP that if the petitioner is granted bail, he may jump the bail and may not be available for the trail.

Observation and judgment of the court:

The hon’ble bench of the court observed the following:

  1. In the instant case, there is nothing before this Court to believe that the petitioner/accused is not guilty or he would not commit the offence once granted bail.
  2. It is also pertinent to mention that earlier when he was granted bail in present FIR u/s 21 NDPS Act, the petitioner jumped the bail and did not appear to face the trial due to which he was declared absconder.
  3. The petitioner should have approached the concerned court stating the reason to show his bonafides as to why he failed to appear but instead he did not approach the concerned court which shows the malafide intentions of the applicant/petitioner.

Based on the above, looking into the conduct of the petitioner the court held that no ground for bail was made out.

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com

Picture Source :

 
Anusree