Delhi High Court
Sahara India Pariwar vs State & Anr. on 6 December, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: November 11, 2010
Date of Order: December 06, 2010
+ Crl. MC No.1617/2010
% 06.12.2010
Sahara India Pariwar ...Petitioner
Versus
State & Anr. ...Respondents
Counsels:
Mr. Somesh Arora for petitioner.
Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for State/respondent.
Mr. V.K. Mishra and Mr. A.V. Shukla, Advocates for R-2
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
JUDGMENT
1. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner for cancellation of bail granted
to respondent no.2 by learned ASJ vide order dated 24th April, 2010.
2. Respondent no.2 was allegedly involved in a case of embezzlement and a case
under Section 408, 120B IPC was registered against him. Respondent no.2 applied for
anticipatory bail initially before this Court and an interim protection was granted to him on
his commitment to pay the amount of Rs.8,65,000/- within a certain period. However,
respondent no.2 could not pay this amount on account of his weak financial condition
and was arrested by the police. After his arrest by the police on 1st April, 2010, he
applied for regular bail. Vide order dated 24th April, 2010, learned ASJ allowed his
regular bail observing that respondent no.2's was not in a position to pay the amount as
Crl. MC No.1617/2010 Page 1 Of 2
committed by him and due to his weak financial condition his son studying in engineering
college was turned out from the college due to non-payment of fee and his marriageable
daughter whose marriage was settled, could not get married. The learned ASJ found that
it was not a case of deliberate non compliance of the commitment made before this
Court but the respondent no.2 was actually hand to mouth. It was also observed that the
alleged embezzlement had taken place on 6th November 2008 but the FIR was
registered on 29th April 2009 i.e. after about six months. The learned ASJ, therefore,
directed that the accused /respondent no.2 herein be released on bail on execution of
personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with one surety.
3. The order of learned ASJ is also assailed on the ground that the bail was not a
right of the accused and there was no change of circumstances between making
application before this Court for anticipatory bail and application before the learned
Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge should have considered the seriousness
of the nature of crime and should have denied bail.
4. I consider that the learned Sessions Judge rightly exercised his discretion in
enlarging the accused on bail. After the accused was enlarged on bail, there is no
complaint that he made an effort to tamper with the evidence or fleeing from the process
of justice. Merely because the accused, due to his weak financial condition, could not
fulfill the commitment made before this Court, regular bail of the accused could not have
been rejected without considering other aspects of the case. I find no reason to cancel
the bail of the accused. The application for cancellation of bail is hereby dismissed.
December 06, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J
rd
Crl. MC No.1617/2010 Page 2 Of 2
