Sachin Sharma vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi
2015 Latest Caselaw 9079 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                               Judgment delivered on : December 07, 2015
+     BAIL APPLN. 1483/2015
      SACHIN SHARMA
                                                            ..... Petitioner
                         Through:    Mr. Jameer Ahmed Mir, Mr. Dhruv
                                     Gupta, Mr. Diviani Khana,
                                     Mr.Rajneesh Chuni, Advocates

                         versus

      STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
                                                            ..... Respondent
                         Through:    Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional
                                     Public Prosecutor for the State with
                                     Sub-Inspector Ranjeet Singh, Special
                                     Cell, SR

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

                                  JUDGMENT

P.S.TEJI, J.

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 16.03.2015, passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge -01, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, vide

which the bail application filed by the present petitioner has been

rejected, the petitioner has filed the present bail application under

Section 439 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 seeking bail in FIR No.71/2009 under Sections 420, 468, 120-B

of Indian Penal Code read with Section 12 of the Passport Act and

under Section 3 of the MCOC Act, Police Station Special Cell, Lodhi

Road, New Delhi.

2. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is that he,

alongwith other accused, has been running an organized crime

syndicate and is involved in as many as 22 criminal cases including

that of cheating, forgery, criminal breach of trust, attempt to culpable

homicide not amounting to murder, wrongful confinement and

criminal intimidation etc., registered at various police stations in

Delhi, Haryana and Punjab. It is also alleged that the petitioner and

his associates earned a lot of assets in Delhi and NCR, out of the

money derived from illegal activities. The basic allegation against the

petitioner is that he alongwith organized crime syndicate headed by

accused Vipin Sharma had been providing fake Visas and forged

passports to the various victims and making money and had also been

indulging in criminal intimidation of the victim.

3. Mr. Jameer Ahmed Mir, counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the petitioner was arrested in the year May, 2010 under the

stringent provisions of Maharashtra Control of Organized Act, 1999

(hereinafter referred to as MCOCA) and till date incarcerated and

awaiting trial. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to the

order dated 27.08.2014 passed by this Court in Bail Appl.

No.1809/2014 wherein the petitioner was allowed to withdraw the

bail application with liberty to file a fresh bail application before the

Trial Court after the charges under MCOCA are framed and in

compliance thereof, the petitioner moved regular bail application

before the concerned Court which was kept in abeyance till the

framing of charges. It is further contended that the bail application

was finally heard by Trial Court and the orders were reserved and the

same was passed after more than half a year had elapsed. It is further

contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody

for more than five years and there is no question of his being a

proclaimed offender in other cases when he is already in jail. Apart

from discussing the various stages of the trial of a case, it is contended

on behalf of the petitioner that one of the co-accused is already

enlarged on bail and parity under Article 14 of the Constitution of

India is claimed. The counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended

that even if the applicant is ultimately convicted by the Trial Court,

which though is quiet far-fetched due to lack of material on record

and the evidence for conviction vis-a-vis mechanical application of

the statute, then also the period for which the petitioner could be

sentenced, he would have already undergone as an under-trial prisoner

by then. Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon a judgment of the

Supreme Court in "Babba v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 11 SCC

569", to contend that "when there is a delay in trial, bail should be

granted to the accused." To support his contentions regarding the

petitioner enlarging on bail, counsel for the petitioner has relied on the

following judgments:

a) Ranjitsingh Brahmanjeetsingh Sharma vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr, (2005) 5 SCC 294;

b) Shridhar Sumant Vagal vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr., (2007) 12 SCC 514;

c) Babanrao Tukaram Ranjane vs. State of Maharashtra (2006) 9 SCC 422;

d) Mohd. Chand Mulani vs. Union of India, (2006) 13 SCC 143;

e) Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2012) 1 SCC 4;

f) Bhim Singh vs. Union of India, (W.P. Criminal 310/2005 decided on 05.09.2014, decided by the Supreme Court);

g) Somwati vs. State (Bail Appln. No.2165/2009 decided by Delhi High Court on 03.12.2009).

4. To oppose the contentions raised by learned counsel for the

petitioner, Mr. Vinod Diwakar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

for the State opposed the aforesaid contentions raised by counsel for

the petitioner. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State

submitted that the petitioner has been individually and jointly with

other accused persons committed violation and criminal intimidation

of the victims besides committing cheating, forgery etc. to the tune of

about Rs.4.5 crores and fourteen fake accounts of the accused persons

are also attached, therefore the petitioner be not granted concession of

bail in the present case.

5. The submissions of counsel for the petitioner and the counter

submissions on behalf of the State have been heard and the material

placed on record has been perused.

6. After careful scrutiny of the case in hand, this Court observes

that there is recovery of a black colour polythene bag from the cursory

search of the petitioner and it was found to contain Indian currency

notes worth Rs.7,94,200/-; the petitioner is also found to be involved

in six other cases; and the petitioner alongwith organized crime

syndicate has been providing fake visas and forged passports to the

various victims and making money and had also been indulging in

criminal intimidation of the victims.

7. I have also perused the judgments cited on behalf of the

petitioner on the point of granting bail and this Court is of the

considered opinion that the bail may be granted to an accused in a

case while taking note of the period during which the accused

remained in custody but simultaneously, the magnitude of the alleged

crime and the consequences thereof are required be kept in mind.

8. This Court also observes that the petitioner is involved in

running an organized crime syndicate and is involved in as many as

22 criminal cases including that of cheating, forgery, criminal breach

of trust, attempt to culpable homicide not amounting to murder,

wrongful confinement and criminal intimidation etc, registered at

various police stations in Delhi, Haryana and Punjab and merely

because the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last about 5

years, does not entitle him to bail, as in criminal jurisprudence, there

cannot be any straightjacket formula regarding grant of bail and every

case is required to be considered on its own facts.

9. As far as the contention raised by counsel for the petitioner

regarding delay in conclusion of the trial, this Court also observes

from the impugned order that there are more than forty five witnesses

who have been dropped due to documents being admitted and the

other witnesses are also largely witnesses on documents, therefore the

time bound directions for conclusion of the trial can be passed.

Accordingly, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of the

case on day to day basis and conclude the same expeditiously,

preferably within a period of six months from the next date fixed

before the Trial Court.

10. In view of the aforesaid observations, facts and circumstances

of the present case, this Court is not inclined to grant the concession

of bail to the petitioner in this case, at this stage. Accordingly, the

present application filed by the petitioner - Sachin Sharma is

dismissed at this stage. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to

file a fresh application for bail, in case the trial is not concluded in the

next six months.

11. It is made clear that the expression of any opinion hereinbefore

may not be treated as an expression on the merits of the case.

12. With aforesaid observations, the present bail application filed

by the petitioner is dismissed.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE DECEMBER 07, 2015 pkb