Delhi High Court
Palvinder Singh vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 4 January, 2016
Author: Siddharth Mridul
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 4th January, 2016
+ BAIL APPLN. 2812/2015
PALVINDER SINGH ..... Applicant
Through Mr. Surinder Kumar and Mr. Chander
Bhan Kumar, Advocates
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP for the State
SI Devendra Singh, P.S. Hari Nagar
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)
1. The present is an application under Section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 1308/2015
under Sections 420/511/471 IPC registered at Police Station- Hari Nagar,
Delhi.
2. Mr. Surinder Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
applicant states that the order dated 21st December, 2015 rejecting the
applicant's second bail application is untenable inasmuch as there is no bar
in law for maintaining second application for anticipatory bail. Learned
counsel would then urge that subsequent to the dismissal of the first
application for anticipatory bail, the applicant had joined investigation,
which was a changed circumstance and further that nothing incriminating
has been found by the police in their investigation against the present
applicant.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Rajat Katyal, learned APP appearing on behalf
of official respondent invites my attention to the order dated 21 st December,
2015 whereby the second application for anticipatory bail filed on behalf of
the present applicant was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge. A
perusal of the same reveals that although the first application for anticipatory
bail filed on behalf of the present applicant was dismissed on merits by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge by way of order dated 22 nd September,
2015, the second application for anticipatory bail filed on behalf of the
present applicant concealed the factum of the earlier bail application having
been dismissed.
4. Mr. Katyal would then urge that since the time of the registration of
the subject FIR and the disclosure statement made on behalf of the co-
accused Gulshan Kumar, the present applicant has neither joined
investigation nor has made himself available for questioning by the
Investigating Officer in the subject FIR except on the solitary occasion when
in the second application for anticipatory bail, the present applicant managed
to obtain interim protection without disclosing the factum of the first
application for anticipatory bail having been dismissed by the trial Court.
5. I have examined the case diary and it is observed that non-bailable
warrants were issued against the present applicant as far back as on 28 th
September, 2015. Subsequent thereto, the proceedings under Section 82
Cr.PC were initiated against the present applicant on 26 th October, 2015,
returnable on 19th December, 2015.
6. The process under Section 82 Cr.PC was executed at the admitted
address of the present applicant on or before 19th November, 2015 by Head
Constable- Kailash Chand. Despite that, the present applicant did not make
himself available before the Magistrate concerned on the returnable date i.e.
19th December, 2015.
7. The second application for anticipatory bail filed on behalf of the
present applicant came to be dismissed on 21st December, 2015.
8. It is an admitted position that despite notice of the facts and
circumstances as elaborated hereinabove, the present applicant has
steadfastly refused to join the investigation.
9. As per the prosecution, the co-accused- Gulshan Kumar in the subject
FIR came personally to the Punjab National Bank, Hari Nagar, New Delhi
on 19th September, 2015 and submitted a cheque bearing no. 255540 in the
amount of Rs. 37,50,000/- for encashment.
10. The Senior Manager of the concerned Branch was suspicious and
enquired from the drawer of the subject cheque as to whether the same had
been duly issued by the latter. It was discovered that the subject cheque was
a forged and fabricated one. The co-accused- Gulshan Kumar was arrested
on the spot and in his disclosure statement, implicated the present applicant
as having provided him with the subject cheque.
11. It is an admitted position that the co-accused- Gulshan Kumar and the
present applicant know each other, although it has been urged on behalf of
the applicant herein that there is enmity between them which has resulted in
the former falsely implicating the latter.
12. In view of the foregoing and specifically the conduct of the present
applicant; and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Lavesh vs.
State (NCT of Delhi) reported as (2012) 8 SCC 730, the present bail
application is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
JANUARY 04, 2016
sd
