Delhi High Court
Rishab Gupta vs State & Anr. on 7 September, 2018
$~17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:- 7th September, 2018
+ CRL.M.C. 3544/2016 & CRL.M.A. 14954/2016
RISHAB GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mohit Mathur, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Mr.
Bakul Jain & Mr. Jatin S. Sethi,
Advs.
Versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for
the State.
Mr. Umakant Kataria, Adv. for
R-2 along with R-2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. On the basis of report under Section 173 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) submitted on conclusion of
investigation into FIR No. 219/2014 of police station Amar Colony
involving offences punishable under Sections
420/467/468/471/120B/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), the
second respondent (accused) is facing trial in the court of Metropolitan
Magistrate, the gravamen whereof in a nutshell is that he had
purportedly sold to the petitioner (the complainant of the case) certain
parcel of land, for consideration, receiving in the process Rs. 2.10
crore directly or indirectly, the later revelations showing the land did
not vest in him, it rather belonging to Delhi Development Authority
(DDA).
2. It appears that the second respondent (accused) had earlier been
arrested and was released on interim bail. He, however, jumped bail
and eventually came to be declared a proclaimed offender after
publication under Section 82 Cr.P.C. After his presence had been
secured, a supplementary charge-sheet was laid in the Court of
Metropolitan Magistrate leading to the trial. He had earlier applied for
bail before this Court by moving bail application no. 919/2016, which
was however, withdrawn and dismissed accordingly by order dated
19.07.2016, he having taken the liberty to approach the trial
court/Sessions Court instead. He approached the Metropolitan
Magistrate by bail application which was dismissed by order dated
23.03.2016. He then moved the court of Sessions by bail application
(CF 1399/2016) which was dismissed by a detailed reasoned order
dated 18.04.2016 taking note, inter alia, of the dismissal of the earlier
bail application and the past conduct. After the dismissal of his bail
application by the court of Sessions he moved yet another application
before the same Magistrate. This fresh application was allowed by a
very cryptic order dated 11.08.2016:-
"11.08.2016
Bail Application moved on behalf of accused Dheeraj
Prasad.
Present: Ld. APP for State.
Accused not present.
Arguments on the bail application already heard.
Arguments on behalf of the complainant were heard on last
date of hearing.
Accused has already spent more than 300 days in custody.
All the other accused persons have already been granted
bail. Considering that accused has not engaged any
counsel and is fighting his own case, in order to afford him
an opportunity of a fair trial so that he may be able to
gather evidence in his defence and also considering the
grounds on parity, this court deems it fit to grant bail to the
accused on furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs.
50,000/- with one surety in like amount. However, he is to
appear in court on each and every date of hearing and no
exemption shall be entertained on his behalf till the
conclusion of trial in the present case.
Copy of the order be sent to Jail Superintendent, Tihar Jail
for intimation to the inmate/accused Dheeraj Prasad".
3. Challenging the above mentioned order and seeking
cancellation of the bail, invoking the jurisdiction under Section 439
(2) Cr.P.C., the complainant of the case has approached this court by
the petition at hand. It has been, inter alia, pointed out that the
impugned order dated 11.08.2016 not only suffers from the vice of it
being cryptic but also that it omits reference to any of the
incriminating facts nor takes note of the gravity of the offences
involved, failing conspicuously to take into account the objection of
the State that the petitioner is involved in a series of such crimes, his
role having come to light (by then) in at least three other such cases,
their particulars (as given in the status report dated 07.10.2016) being
case FIR No. 146/12 under Sections 420/465/468/471/474 IPC, PS
Pandav Nagar, Delhi; case FIR No. 20/14, under Sections 406/420/506
IPC, PS Kotwali Nai Mandi, Mujaffarnagar, UP; and case FIR No.
87/15 under Sections 420/468/471/120-B IPC, PS C.R. Park, New
Delhi. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that there is yet another case in which the accused is
involved it being FIR 3/2017 police station EOW involving offences
under Sections 406/120B/34/420 IPC.
4. After some hearing, the learned counsel for the second
respondent, on instructions from the second respondent, who is
present in person, submitted that he fairly concedes that the impugned
order dated 11.08.2016 is deficient in above aspects, it not having
been passed by taking comprehensive note of the facts and
circumstances. He submitted that the second respondent is ready and
willing to forgo and forfeit the benefit of the impugned order dated
11.08.2016 which, he concedes, may be cancelled under Section 439
(2) Cr.P.C. though he seeks liberty to apply afresh to the Court of
Sessions or this Court, if need be thereafter, for release on regular bail.
He undertakes that the second respondent is ready to surrender to
custody forthwith and that he shall make an application to this effect
by presenting himself in person before the trial court on or before 12 th
September, 2018.
5. Binding the second respondent with this undertaking and setting
aside the impugned order dated 11.08.2016, the petition is disposed of.
Needless to add, the trial court would take all consequent measures in
light of this decision.
6. Copy of the order be given dasti to all sides.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
SEPTEMBER 07, 2018
nk
