Delhi High Court

Ranjeet Singh vs State Of Nct Of Delhii & Anr. on 10 April, 2012

Author: Pratibha Rani

$~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

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withdrawn on 3.8.2011;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.

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.

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

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"

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

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

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,

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

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