Delhi High Court
State vs Naveen Chander Upadhyaya on 8 August, 2012
Author: Manmohan
#8
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 271/2012
STATE ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Pawan Sharma, Standing Counsel
with Mr. Sahil Mongia and
Ms. Priyanka Kapoor, Advocates
versus
NAVEEN CHANDER UPADHYAYA ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Ravi Nayak with Mr. S.P.
Kaushal and Mr. Praveen Nagar,
Advocates.
% Date of Decision: 8th August, 2012
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J : (Oral)
1. Present petition has been filed by the State for cancellation of
anticipatory bail granted to respondent/accused by learned Additional
Sessions Judge-02 (for short 'ASJ'), Dwarka, New Delhi vide order
dated 21st May, 2011 in FIR Nos. 160/2011, 166/2011, 167/2011 and
168/2011 registered with PS IGI Airport under Sections
419/420/468/471 IPC and Section 12 of Passports Act.
2. Mr. Pawan Sharma, learned standing counsel for the State
submits that without any change of circumstances learned ASJ has
granted anticipatory bail to respondent-accused within sixteen days of
his earlier order dated 4th May, 2011 refusing anticipatory bail. He
further submits that as learned ASJ had himself vide his earlier order
dated 4th May, 2011 transferred the investigation to Special Cell,
Rohini, he did not have jurisdiction to decide the second anticipatory
bail application.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Ravi Nayak, learned counsel for
respondent states that learned ASJ has granted anticipatory bail vide
order dated 21st May, 2011 because after dismissal of his first
anticipatory bail application, respondent-accused had offered to
surrender but the Investigating Officer had not arrested him. He also
states that till date there is no incriminating material on record which
warrants respondent-accused's custodial investigation.
4. In rejoinder, Mr. Pawan Sharma has handed over certified
copies of the proceedings before learned ACMM on respondent-
accused's application seeking permission to surrender in Court.
5. Having heard the parties and having perused the two orders
dated 4th May, 2011 and 21st May, 2011 passed by learned ASJ, this
Court is of the view that there was no change of circumstances
warranting grant of anticipatory bail to the respondent/accused on 21st
May, 2011. This Court is also of the view that had the learned ASJ
perused the proceedings before learned ACMM on the surrender
application of the respondent/accused, it would have been apparent to
him that in fact, respondent/accused had never surrendered before the
Court.
6. While on the first date of hearing before learned ACMM,
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, i.e., on 6th May, 2011, respondent/
accused was not present, on 9th May, 2011 the matter had only been
transferred to learned CMM, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and thereafter
on the next date of hearing, i.e., 14th May, 2011 respondent/accused
had simply withdrawn his surrender application.
7. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that the respondent-accused
had failed to join the investigation and had, in fact, never surrendered
before the trial court.
8. Moreover, in the opinion of this Court, the allegations in the
first FIR are very serious and need to be investigated thoroughly. It is
pertinent to mention that that investigation in the present batch of
FIRs was started by the Delhi Police only when a lady passenger was
deported to India from Brussels as she was found travelling on forged
documents.
9. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 21 st
May, 2011 passed by learned ASJ is quashed and set aside.
Accordingly, present petition stands allowed.
MANMOHAN, J
AUGUST 08, 2012
rn
