Delhi High Court
Amit Goyal vs State (Govt. Of Nct ) on 16 January, 2018
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 16.01.2018
+ CRL.M.C. 3849/2014
AMIT GOYAL ..... Petitioner
versus
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT ) ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. M.A. Karthik with Mr. Abhimanyu Kampani,
Advocates.
For the Respondent : Mr. Akshai Malik, APP for State
Mr. R.N. Vats with Ms. Pranati Vats, Advocates for
respondent No.2 with respondent No.2 in person.
SI Govind Singh, PS Uttam Nagar.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
16.01.2018
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
CRL.M.C. 3849/2014 & Crl. M.A. 13198/2014 (stay)
1. The petitioner impugns order dated 12.08.2014, whereby, the
interim protection granted to the petitioner on 03.08.2013 and
continued on 25.02.2014 was cancelled.
2. It may be noticed that this Court, by order dated 23.05.2017
vacated the ad-interim protection given to the petitioner by this Court
by order dated 27.08.2014. The petitioner has filed a special leave
petition before the Supreme Court impugning the order of this Court
vacating the ad-interim protection granted to the petitioner. The
Supreme Court has, pending consideration of the special leave
petition, protected the petitioner.
3. It may be noticed that by order dated 03.08.2013 on the
anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioner, the trial had granted
an interim protection to the petitioner, pending consideration of the
said application, on the premise that the main accused Mr. Deepak
Goyal and the co-accused Mr. Anil Anand had already been granted
interim bail.
4. Subsequently, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing
for the complainant, the said main accused and the co-accused,
referred above, did not comply with the terms and conditions of the
settlement with the complainant and the interim protection granted to
them was vacated. Keeping in view the facts that the main accused
had not complied with the terms of the settlement, the interim
protection granted to the petitioner was vacated by the impugned
order dated 12.08.2014.
5. Learned counsel for the parties inform that the main
anticipatory bail application of the petitioner is listed before the trial
Court on 02.04.2018 for consideration on merits.
6. These proceedings emanate out of an ad-interim order. Since
the main anticipatory bail application of the petitioner is listed for
consideration, it would be expedient for the Court to take up and
dispose of the same on merits.
7. It is noticed that the impugned order dated 12.08.2014 vacated
the interim protection, which had been granted to the petitioner on
03.08.2013, because of a settlement between the complainant as well
as the main accused and the co-accused. The merits of the application
of the petitioner do not appear to have been considered when the
interim protection was granted on 03.08.2013 and vacated on
12.08.2014 by the impugned order.
8. Accordingly, the Trial Court is directed to consider and dispose
of the application of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail on its
own merit, on the next date i.e. 02.04.2018.
9. It is clarified that the contentions on behalf of the complainant
that the settlement agreement was also on behalf of the petitioner and,
as such, the petitioner should also suffer similar consequences as the
main accused for violations of the terms of the settlement and the rival
contention of the petitioner that he is not at all involved in the alleged
offence and the Settlement Agreement was not on his behalf and any
violation of the terms of the same cannot be to the detriment of the
complainant are reserved and left open to be considered by the Trial
Curt without being influenced by anything stated in the impugned
order as well as in this order.
10. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
11. Order dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
JANUARY 16, 2018
st
