Delhi High Court
Dheeraj Sharma vs State & Ors. on 20 November, 2018
$~49
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision:- 20.11.2018
+ CRL.M.C. 5795/2018 & CRL.M.A. 47535/2018
DHEERAJ SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.R.M.Tufail with Mr.Farooq and
Ms.Astha, Advs.
versus
STATE & ORS ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Mukesh Kumar, APP with Insp.
Pankaj Arora, PS Crime Branch.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
REKHA PALLI, J (ORAL)
1. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner hands over a
bunch of additional documents, copies whereof have been provided to
Mr.Mukesh Kumar, learned APP. The said documents are taken on
record.
2. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks modification of
the conditions imposed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
while granting him bail vide order dated 24.05.2018.
3. Before dealing with the rival contentions of the parties, it would
be appropriate to refer to the conditions imposed by the learned Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate while grating bail to the petitioner. The
relevant portions of the order dated 24.05.2018 passed by the learned
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate are reproduced hereinbelow:-
14. In view of the settlement the accused is granted interim
bail for a period of six months subject to the following
conditions:-
1. On furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 1 lacs
with one surety in the like amount.
2. The accused shall not create any third party
interest in the property bearing No. 26-A, Pocket B
Mayur Vihar, Phase-II till further orders.
3. He shall not leave the territory of India without
permission of the court.
4. He shall deposit his passport in original with the
IO within two days of his release from the custody.
5. He shall make payment to all the victims
alongwith interest in one installment as per the
settlement arrived today after six months from today.
6. He shall not interfere with the investigation and
shall join the investigation as and when called.
4. A perusal of the aforesaid order clearly shows that the
conditions for the grant of bail to the petitioner, were imposed on the
basis of a settlement arrived at between the parties and, in fact, a
prayer had been made on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that
interim bail may be granted to him for a period of six months so that
he can arrange the funds for making payments to the victims/investors
in compliance of the condition no.5 imposed on him for grant of bail.
5. It is an admitted position that based on the aforesaid order dated
24.05.2018, the petitioner was released on interim bail on 24.05.2018
itself, which he has been enjoying for the last almost 6 months and it
is only at the fag end of the said period of 6 months that the present
petition seeking modification of the conditions of bail, has come to be
filed on 14.11.2018.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has essentially raised two
contentions before this Court, the first being that since the petitioner
was bound to make payments to all the victims alongwith interest in
one instalment after 6 months from the date of the passing of the
aforesaid order, the same had to be done as per list of victims to be
provided by the Investigating Officer. He submits that while the said
list was provided to him by the Investigating Officer, the same was
faulty as it also included the names of 7 persons who had already been
paid the due compensation in the proceedings arising out of FIR
No.153/2015. He, therefore, submits that the said condition no.5 as
noted hereinabove, is liable to be set aside and prays that the order
dated 24.05.2018 be modified to that extent.
7. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
is that the condition directing the petitioner to make the requisite
payments to the victims alongwith interest in one instalment, is
onerous and in the teeth of the law laid down by the Apex Court on
the subject of the imposition of conditions on the grant of bail. In this
regard he places reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the
case of Sumit Mehta v. State of NCT of Delhi
[Crl.Apl.No.1436/2013] and while drawing my attention to
paragraphs 13 to 15 of the same, states that that the aforesaid
condition imposed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on
the grant of bail to the petitioner, is evidently onerous and
unreasonable. He, therefore, prays that the same be set aside.
8. On the other hand, Mr.Mukesh Kumar, learned APP
vehemently opposes the petition by stating that the petitioner has
enjoyed the aforesaid interim bail order for a period of six months and
cannot at this belated stage be permitted to urge that the conditions
therein are in any manner onerous or unreasonable. He further
submits that the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
Investigating Officer has included the names of the 7 persons who he
claims to have already compensated in the proceedings arising out of
FIR No.153/2015, is factually incorrect. However, to cut short the
controversy, Mr.Mukesh Kumar reiterates on instructions from the
Investigating Officer that the names of the 7 persons that the
petitioner claims to have compensated are not included in the list
being furnished to the petitioner for compliance of condition no.5 of
the order dated 24.05.2018.
9. For the sake of clarity the names of the 7 persons, who
according to the petitioner already stand compensated and whose
names are admittedly not included in the list furnished by the
Investigating Officer, are reproduced hereinbelow:-
NUMBER MENTIONED AS PER LIST OF FIR NO.732/15
Bold names are also reflects in FIR No.153/15
S.No. Name Project Plot Area Registry Expenses Registry
No. Amount/considera
tion Amount
1. Dharamvir Malik Anand 232 100 Rs.18,500/- Rs.3,70,000/-
S/o Sh.Satyapal Niketan
Malik
5. Laxmi Rawat D/o Pending Rs.10,80,000/-
Rajesh Singh
Rawat
6. Mayur Singh S/o Pending Rs.13,60,000/-
Sh.Vinod Kumar
7. Sh.Sharvan BE-E 145 50 Rs.25,000/- Rs.5,00,000/-
Kumar S/o
Sh.Siya Ram Raut
11. Parbha Singh @ BEE 41 70.25 Registry Done Rs.2,96,000/-
Prabha W/o
Sh.Brij Mohan
12. Sh.Ranjeet Kumar BE-E 31 71 Registry Done Rs.3,20,000/-
S/o Sh.Sattya
Narayan
13. Priya Kumar @ BEE 49 70.25 Registry Done Rs.8,19,000/-
Priya Kumari W/o
Nirbhay Kumar
10. In the light of the aforesaid broad facts, I have considered the
rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record. The foremost fact that needs to be noted is that the
petitioner is seeking modification of the conditions for the grant of
bail as imposed by the learned Trial Court just before the conclusion
of the period of six months after which he was required to make the
necessary payments to the victims/investors. It is interesting to note
that the petitioner, who was in custody and had been produced before
the learned Trial Court when the aforesaid order dated 24.05.2018
was passed, was released on interim bail on the very same day only in
view of the statement made by him in Court to the effect that he is
agreeable to the proposed settlement, which included compensating
the victims in one instalment after a period of 6 months from the date
of the passing of the order.
11. In the light of the admitted position that the settlement was not
only arrived in the petitioner's presence but was also the basis of his
release from judicial custody for the last six months, I am unable to
fathom how he can now contend that the conditions imposed by the
learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on him for grant of bail are
unreasonable or onerous, especially in view of his specific consent to
the proposed settlement as recorded in the order dated 24.05.2018.
Even otherwise, in my considered view the condition imposed on the
petitioner to generate the necessary funds and pay back the victims
alongwith interest in one instalment, for which purpose the petitioner
was granted interim bail for six months, cannot in any manner be said
to be unreasonable.
12. I have also considered the decision of the Apex Court relied
upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In my view the said
decision, which related to a case wherein as a condition to the grant of
anticipatory bail, the learned Trial Court had directed a FDR of Rs. 1
crore to be kept with the Investigating Officer, is clearly
distinguishable from the facts in the present case. In the present case,
the conditions imposed by learned Trial Court were based on a
settlement arrived at between the parties and the petitioner having
taken the benefit of the order granting him interim bail, cannot now
turn around and contend that the conditions imposed therein are
unreasonable. In my opinion, in case the petitioner was aggrieved by
any condition imposed on him for the grant of bail, it was incumbent
upon him to approach the Court within a reasonable time after the
passing of the said order, instead of availing the benefit of the said
order and then approaching the Court at the fag end.
13. Now, in as much as the second submission made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner is concerned that the Investigating Officer
has included in the list of investors who need to be paid by the
petitioner in accordance with the order dated 24.05.2018, even the
names of those 7 victims who already stand compensated in the
proceedings arising out of FIR No. 153/5015, the same need not
detain me in view of the categorical statement made by the
Investigating Officer before this Court, that the names of those 7
persons are not included in the list of investors furnished by him. The
Investigating Officer will remain bound by his aforesaid statement.
14. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is dismissed alongwith
the pending application as being meritless.
(REKHA PALLI)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 20, 2018
sr
