$~30
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 10, 2012
+ CRL.M.C. 1177/2012
RANJEET SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through:Mr.Kaushal Yadav, Advocate
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
ORDER
% 10.04.2012
1. This Criminal Misc. Petition has been filed impugning the order dated 12.3.2012 whereby the bail granted by learned Metropolitan Magistrate was cancelled by learned Additional Sessions Judge mainly on the ground that judicial propriety did not permit the learned M.M. to grant bail when the same had already been declined by learned A.S.J.
2. The facts leading to registration of case FIR No.117/2011, P.S. Nihal Vihar under Section 420/406/34 IPC are that on 14.9.2009, Ravi Hasan(co-accused) filed a civil Suit No.CS(OS) No.1795/2009 for declaration, possession and permanent Crl.M.C.1177/2012 Page 1 of 10 injunction claiming to be the owner of entire plot/built up property measuring 500 sq. Yards out of Khasra No.77/138 18 situated in Revenue village of Nangloi Jat, Delhi. The ownership was claimed on the basis of the same being purchased on 19.3.2008 for consideration of Rs.57,26,600/- from the petitioner Ranjeet Singh. After perusing the status report submitted by SHO, Nihal Vihar, on the observation made by this Court in the order dt.5.4.2011, the above said FIR was registered. The petitioner was arrested on 2.6.2011 and, thereafter, number of bail applications were filed which would be referred hereinafter:
a) First bail application was filed on 7.6.2011 before learned M.M. which was dismissed by learned M.M. vide order dated 25.6.2011;
b) On 15.7.2011, another bail application was filed before the Court of Sessions which was dismissed as withdrawn on 3.8.2011;
c) On 3.8.2011 itself, second bail application was filed before learned M.M. which was again dismissed by learned M.M. vide order dated 4.8.2011.
Crl.M.C.1177/2012 Page 2 of 10
d) On the very next day i.e. 4.8.2011 vide common order, learned M.M. dismissed the application of the petitioner as well as co-accused seeking bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., on the ground that documents were beyond the reach of the Investigating Officer.
e) On the very next day i.e. 5.8.2011, the second bail application was moved before learned A.S.J. which was also dismissed by learned A.S.J. vide order of even date, observing that the matter under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is pending before Hon'ble High Court and other co-accused persons were yet to be arrested and further investigation was pending. Therefore, relying upon the case titled Naresh Sharma v. State 2000(84) DLT 657, the bail application was dismissed by learned ASJ.
f) On not being able to secure bail, either on merits or statutory bail, in view of the facts and circumstances, the petitioner challenged the order dismissing his application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. before the court of Session by filing Crl.Rev.P.No.158/2/11 which was also dismissed by learned A.S.J. vide order dated 26.9.2011. Crl.M.C.1177/2012 Page 3 of 10
g) Finding no other way out to get bail, fourth bail application was filed before learned M.M. which was disposed of vide order dated 24.11.2011 observing that learned counsel for the petitioner had informed that there was a possibility of settlement between the parties and accused Ranjeet Singh i.e. petitioner be released on interim bail so that matter can be negotiated between the parties. Observing that supplementary charge sheet was yet to be filed and I.O. was yet to collect documents from High Court for sending the same for comparison in order to facilitate settlement, interim bail of 14 days was granted with the directions to the parties to appear before the Mediation Cell on 28.11.2011 and before learned M.M. on 8.12.2011.
h) The mediation failed and making observation to this effect matter was sent by Judge In-charge, Mediation Cell, Tis Hazari.
i)The proceedings dated 8.12.2011 by learned M.M. revealed that despite receiving the report from Mediation Centre that mediation has failed, instead of making the Crl.M.C.1177/2012 Page 4 of 10 petitioner to surrender, interim bail was extended till 16.12.2011 and no justification for extending the interim bail was incorporated in the order.
j)On 16.12.2011, when petitioner Ranjeet Singh appeared before learned M.M., while still on interim bail, bail application moved by him was taken up for hearing and learned M.M. passed the following order:-
"16.12.2011 Present: Ld.APP for the State Accused Ranjeet Singh is present on interim bail with counsel Sh.B.B.Sharma Accused Ravi Hasan is present on bail Sister of the AR of the complainant is also present Surety Sh.Sanjay Shokeen is also present The interim bail of the accused Ranjeet Singh is extended for today. Bail application of accused Ranjeet Singh is taken up for hearing.
Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the bail application.
Matter cannot be settled in mediation centre. Accused has already remained in JC for almost 6 months. Hence, keeping in view, the facts and circumstances of the case, accused Ranjeet Singh is admitted to bail on furnishing of bail bond in sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount.
Bail bond already furnished accepted.
IO be summoned to apprise the court about the status of supplementary charge sheet for 24.02.2012.
MM-08/West/Delhi 16.12.2011"Crl.M.C.1177/2012 Page 5 of 10
3. Feeling aggrieved about the manner in which interim bail was made absolute, the complainant moved the Court of Session for cancellation of the bail. Vide impugned order, learned DJ & ASJ(West)/ARCT took into consideration not only the facts and the nature of allegations against the petitioner but also the orders passed from time to time on the bail applications filed by the petitioner and was constrained to observe as under:-
"It has been held in 2006(1) AD (Cri) 403 Delhi that successive applications for bail are not maintainable. In 2010(1) JCC 417 our own Hon'ble High Court ruled that long incarceration is no ground for bail when amount of cheating is heavy. Judicial propriety did not permit the Ld. MM to grant bail when the same has already been declined by Ld. ASJ. The application for cancellation of bail is allowed. The bail of the accused is cancelled. The IO is directed to apprehend the accused and produce him before Ld. MM. Copy of the order be given Dasti."
4. While praying for quashing of the order dated 5.8.2011 passed by learned ASJ cancelling the bail application of the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that legal position is settled in Nityanand Rai V. State of Bihar and Another (2005) 4 SCC 178 and State of U.P. through CBI V. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21 wherein it was held that consideration of an application for grant of bail stands on a different footing than one for cancellation of bail. Grounds Crl.M.C.1177/2012 Page 6 of 10 for cancellation of bail should be those which arose after the grant of bail and should be referable to the conduct of the accused while on bail. In an application for cancellation of bail subsequent to release of bail and the supervening circumstance alone are relevant. It has been urged that in the instant case, there is nothing to suggest that after being granted bail, at any point of time the conduct of the petitioner was such which justified cancellation of bail and in these circumstances, the impugned order dated 12.03.2012 by learned ASJ be quashed.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the case law cited by him. There cannot be any dispute regarding the legal proposition laid down in the two cases about the principles governing cancellation of bail relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner. What is required to be seen in the present case is that whether the bail was granted to the petitioner after considering the merits of this case? The various bail orders annexed with the petition passed by learned M.M. and learned A.S.J. dismissing successive bail applications are sufficient to Crl.M.C.1177/2012 Page 7 of 10 answer this question in negative. When Learned MM has repeatedly considered the case for grant of bail on merits and in view of the gravity of the offence, did not consider it fit to enlarge him on bail, after being giving the benefit of interim bail for a short duration to enable the parties to negotiate before Mediation Centre, that benefit could not have been made absolute especially when the mediation talks failed and the purpose for which interim bail was granted stood defeated. Mere incarceration for 6 months alone could not have been a ground to make the interim bail absolute.
6. Learned A.S.J. has rightly observed that when bail was refused by the Court of Sessions on 05.08.2011 and even the revision petition impugning the order passed on 12.03.2012 seeking statutory bail was dismissed, judicial propriety did not permit learned M.M. to make the interim bail order granting 14 days to enable the parties to negotiate, the same could not have been made absolute. The allegations against the petitioner were grave as after he allegedly sold the plot in question vide registered sale deed on 6.12.1985 was left with no right vested in him to enter into another sale to Ravi Hasan, Crl.M.C.1177/2012 Page 8 of 10 the co-accused. In the civil suit being CS(OS) No.1795/2009, this Court was constrained to observe that serious offences having been committed by the petitioner and Ravi Hasan, liberty was given to the police to register the case against them and proceed in accordance with law, even proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. were initiated in the civil suit being CS (OS) No.1795/2009.
7. The observations made by this Court in Prem Kumar Parmer V. State(CBI) 1989 RLR 131 can be extracted to deal with the offenders like the one in this case:-
"that the offences such as cheating and forgery bring imbalance in the economy of the country, which has the effect of making the life of majority of people, particularly those belonging to economically weaker sections of the society miserable and that such economic offences are worse than murders.
8. No doubt the petitioner remained for about 6 months in judicial custody and the charge sheet was filed but the Court cannot ignore that persons involved in such type of transactions where the property was sold, resold in dubious manner so as to continue to reap the benefit of the crime committed by them, merely because a few months have been spent in judicial custody would not be sufficient to grant them Crl.M.C.1177/2012 Page 9 of 10 bail just on this ground so that after spending a few months in jail, they can come out and enjoy the wealth obtained through cheating the bona fide purchasers who for one reason or other are not being able to personally supervise the property so purchased and taking advantage of the situation, the same is sold and resold time and again to get rich overnight.
9. Taking into consideration the fact and circumstance in which the ld. ASJ was constrained to cancel the bail granted by Ld. MM, ignoring earlier orders passed by the Court of MM as well as the court of A.S.J. without there being any change of circumstances or justification on merits to make the order granting interim bail, absolute. Learned A.S.J. has rightly cancelled the bail for the reasons detailed in the impugned order. No merit. Petition stands dismissed.
PRATIBHA RANI, J APRIL 10, 2012 ks Crl.M.C.1177/2012 Page 10 of 10