Delhi High Court
Smt. Laxmi vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 31 May, 2005
Equivalent citations: 121 (2005) DLT 497
Author: B D Ahmed
Bench: B D Ahmed
JUDGMENT
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.
1. In this case, the petitioner had been granted bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by an order dated 23.02.2005. Upon going through that order, it appears that one of the circumstances under which the petitioner had been directed to be released on bail was that the petitioner was considered to be of 75 years of age. This would be clear from the operative portion of the order dated 23.02.2005 which reads as under:-
"Considering all the circumstances though the offence is very serious, I direct the applicant be released on bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties in the like amount as she is a lady of the age of 75 years under Section 437 Cr.P.C."
2. Thereafter an application under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail was moved on behalf of the State. The application was moved for cancellation of bail on two grounds. Firstly, it was alleged that the age of the petitioner was not 75 years and that the petitioner had wrongly mentioned her age as 75 years. According to them her age is about 65 years and that is what is being maintained by the prosecution even today. The second ground taken was that the petitioner had not disclosed in her application that even an interim bail application moved before this Court had been rejected by an order dated 05.05.2004 It is alleged that the petitioner concealed this fact from the Sessions Court and the order of bail was passed upon mis-statement and also concealment of this very material fact. Considering these submissions, the learned Additional Sessions Judge by an order dated 03.03.2005 allowed the cancellation of bail application and recalled the order of grant of bail dated 23.02.2005 on the ground of concealment of material facts.
3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court for grant of bail. In response to the query made by this Court with regard to the nature and contents of the order passed by this Court on 05.05.2004, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed a copy of the order which reads as under:-
"Bail Application 869/2004
This is a petition for interim bail.
Heard. Earlier petitioner was granted in custody parole to attend the ceremonies of death of her son who died on 07.04.2004 No ground is made out for grant of interim bail. Accordingly, this petition is rejected."
4. Upon reading the aforesaid order, it appears that this Court had denied interim bail to the petitioner even on the occasion of the death of her son and only custody parole was granted. The learned counsel for the State opposed the grant of bail in this case and submitted with some degree of vehemence that had this order been placed before the Sessions Court when the petitioner's bail application was being considered, in all likelihood, the order of grant of bail would not have been passed. With regard to the issue of the age of the petitioner, the learned counsel for the State maintained that the age was also wrongly disclosed as 75 years when in point of fact the petitioner is about 65 years of age.
5. Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, although there may be some discrepancies in the age as submitted by the petitioner and as indicated by the prosecution, the material fact is that the order passed by this Court refusing interim bail to the petitioner was not disclosed before the Sessions Court where the petitioner's application for bail was pending. Whether the Court would or would not have granted the bail even after going through this order is something which we shall never know, however, the fact remains that the petitioner had concealed this fact from the Court. Normally, when the High Court refuses even interim bail to an accused, it can be safely assumed that the court of Sessions would be extremely wary of granting bail unless the fact situation or the position in law had completely altered in the meanwhile.
6. However, in view of the fact that this material circumstance was not brought to the notice of the Court, I find it difficult to interfere with the cancellation of bail order dated 03.03.2005 and, therefore, this application is rejected.
