HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 123/2020
Union Of India, Through P.P.
----Petitioner
Versus
Fakruddin Quereshi S/o Shri Nizammuddin Qureshi, Aged About
40 Years, R/o Near Kapas Mill Vpo-Bali Distt. Pali Raj. Holder Of
Passport No J9573631
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anand Sharma, through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh, through VC, for Mr. Hridayesh Singh HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Order 18/08/2021 The application under Section 439(2) seeking cancellation of bail granted to the accused-petitioner under Section 439 CrPC by the Court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic offences), Jaipur Metropolitan-II, vide order dated 11.11.2020, has been filed by the applicant.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that while extending the accused respondent benefit of bail, learned trial Court did not consider the notification No.36/2015-2020 dated 18.12.2019. Relying on a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Kumer Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (MANU/SC/0483/2021) decided on 20.07.2021, he submitted that since the order impugned is based on irrelevant consideration, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and the bail extended to the accused respondent deserves to be cancelled. He further (Downloaded on 18/08/2021 at 10:07:47 PM) (2 of 3) [CRLBC-122/2020] submitted that learned trial Court erred in passing the order impugned taking into consideration the quantity of prohibited article recovered from the possession of accused respondent as the offence under Section 135 is punishable irrespective of the quantity of the prohibited article.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposed the prayer and submitted that the order impugned does not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting its cancellation and hence, the bail cancellation application deserves to be dismissed.
Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
A perusal of the impugned order reveals that accused respondent has been extended benefit of bail taking into consideration the relevant factors. It has been observed by the learned trial Court that the accused respondent did not have any criminal antecedents and he was in judicial custody since long. The weight of prohibited article recovered from his possession was also taken into consideration while extending benefit of bail. In so far as contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that quantity of the prohibited article recovered from possession of the accused respondent was not a relevant criteria, is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that the sentence provided under Section 135 of the Act of 1962 may extend upto 7 years and hence, it cannot be said that quantity of the prohibited article has no nexus with the severity of punishment. The accused respondent was extended benefit of bail vide order dated 11.11.2020 and it has not been a case of petitioner that he has tampered with the evidence, has tried to influence the investigation in any manner or has indulged in offence of similar nature again. It is well (Downloaded on 18/08/2021 at 10:07:47 PM) (3 of 3) [CRLBC-122/2020] established principle of law that parameters for cancellation of bail stand altogether on different altar than the consideration for grant of bail and benefit of bail granted by a competent Court should not be cancelled by a higher Court in a mechanical manner unless the order impugned stands vitiated on account of being influenced by irrelevant consideration, perversity or non-application of mind. This Court does not find any irregularity or perversity in the order dated 11.11.2020 extending the accused respondent benefit of bail and hence, the bail cancellation application is dismissed devoid of merit.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J DANISH USMANI /04 (Downloaded on 18/08/2021 at 10:07:47 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)