Delhi High Court
State Of Nct Ofdelhi vs Jahir Momin @ Javed on 27 November, 2014
Author: V.P.Vaish
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 4081/2012
STATE OF NCT OFDELHI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Navin Sharma, APP for the
State.
SI Krishan Kumar, PS Lodhi Road,
Spl. Cell.
versus
JAHIR MOMIN @ JAVED ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.P.VAISH
VED PRAKASH VAISH, J. (ORAL)
1. This is a petition under Section 439 read with 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure seeking cancellation of bail granted to the respondent
vide order dated 25.09.2012.
2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that on 21.08.2012, two
persons namely, Ayub and Vinod @ Nadeem were arrested at ISBT,
Anand Vihar, Delhi with the purported fake currency notes. The FIR
bearing No.19/2012 under Sections 489(B) and (C)/120B IPC was
registered at PS Special Cell. On the basis of their disclosure statements,
respondent herein namely Jahir Momim @ Javed was arrested on
24.08.2012 and 27 purported fake Indian currency notes of Rs.1,000/-
(Rupee One thousand) denomination were recovered from his house. The
respondent/accused moved an application for regular bail which was
allowed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-02, Delhi vide order dated
25.09.2012.
3. Learned APP for the State urges that during investigation,
Investigating Officer collected call detail record of mobile phone of all
the three accused persons which shows that they were in constant touch
with each other. He also pointed out that none of the mobile numbers
recovered and used by the accused persons were procured by furnishing
their real identities. He also submits that the trial Court has not
considered the gravity of offence under Sections 489 and 120B IPC and
the bail granted to the respondent is liable to be cancelled. On a query,
learned APP for the State submits that the investigation is already
complete and charge-sheet has been filed. He also states that the charges
have been framed by the trial Court and the applicant is appearing before
the trial Court.
4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by learned APP
for the State.
5. In 'Daulat Ram vs. State of Haryana', (1995) 1 SCC 349, it was
held:-
"4. Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial
stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be
considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and
overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order
directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted.
Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail,
broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or
attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of
justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of
justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in
any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of
material placed on the record of the possibility of the
accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the
cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not
be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering
whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no
longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain
his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the
trial. These principles, it appears, were lost sight of by the
High Court when it decided to cancel the bail, already
granted. The High Court it appears to us overlooked the
distinction of the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non-
bailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail
already granted."
6. It is a settled law that the ground for cancellation of bail and
ground for rejection of bail stands on different footing. It is well settled
law that different considerations have to be weighed while considering
the application for grant of bail and while considering an application for
cancellation of bail already granted. The power of cancellation of bail
must be exercised with care and circumspection of cogent and
overwhelming circumstances which are necessary for an order seeking
cancellation of bail. Where there is no violation of the terms of order
granting bail, cancellation is not justified. The bail already granted should
not be cancelled in a routine manner as it will jeopardize personal liberty
of the person. The order of bail can be cancelled on the existence of
cogent and overwhelming circumstances but not on re-appreciation of
evidence.
7. In the present case, it is not a case of the State before this Court
that the respondent abused, in any manner, the order granting bail to the
respondent. No supervening circumstances have been brought to the
notice of this Court which may warrant the recalling of the order dated
25.09.2012 for cancellation of bail. The investigation is already complete
and charge-sheet has been filed. In my view, there is no sufficient ground
for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent.
8. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the petition is without any
merits and the same is hereby dismissed.
(VED PRAKASH VAISH)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 27, 2014
gm
