The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Mumtaz vs State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. consisting of Justice Amit Mahajan reiterated that the simple fact that multiple criminal charges are still pending against the accused cannot be used as a reason to deny bail on its own.
Facts and Procedural History:
This application was made u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for regular bail in an FIR u/s 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Sabzi Mandi.
On 28.08.2022, a raid was conducted on the ground floor of House No. 32/6, Sita Saran Colony, Sabzi Mandi, where 48 people were apprehended, and an FIR was issued u/s 3/4/5/9/55 of the Delhi Public Gambling Act, 1955. During the search, various weapons were recovered.
Contentions Made:
Petitioners: It was contended that in the same raid, co-accused, Jitender, and Shiva were also found in possession of the weapons, they were also found to be involved in other cases, and had been granted bail by the learned Trial Court. It was also contended that he was wrongly implicated and made a scapegoat because of previous cases against him.
Respondents: It was contended that the applicant had been previously involved in cases of similar nature. In all cases, the applicant had been discharged or was on bail. So, keeping the antecedents of the applicant in view, the bail ought not to be granted.
Observations of the Court:
The Bench noticed that the petitioner was involved in 23 other cases but was discharged, acquitted, or granted bail. It relied on Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P. and reiterated that:
“Mere pendency of several criminal cases against the accused cannot itself be the basis for refusal of bail. The same can be a factor, however, cannot a sole basis for refusal of prayer of bail.”
It further noted that even though a charge sheet has been filed, the investigation, according to the State, will take longer. In addition, the applicant was not accused of trying to skip bail in any of the cases where he had been granted bail. It had also not been alleged that incarcerating the petitioner was necessary to prevent him from tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses.
The decision of the Court:
Keeping in view the aforesaid, the applicant was directed to be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond for a sum of ₹50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court on fulfilment of certain conditions. It was, however, made clear that any observations made in this order were only for deciding this application and should not influence the outcome of the trial.
Case: Mumtaz vs State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
Coram: Justice Amit Mahajan
Case No: BAIL APPLN. 3165/2022, decided on 28th December 2022
Advocates for Petitioner: Mr. K K Manan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Robin Tyagi & Ms. Uditi Bali.
Advocates for Respondent: Ms. Richa Dhawan, APP for State ASI Dinesh & HC Bal Krishan, PS Sabzi Mandi
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
