Delhi High Court
Sameer Mehta vs The State ( Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 13 December, 2019
$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 13.12.2019
+ CRL.M.C. 581/2019
SAMEER MEHTA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.D.K. Yatri, Adv.
versus
THE STATE ( NCT OF DELHI) & ANR ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Panna Lal Sharma, APP for State.
Insp.Ram Pal PS Prasad Nagar.
Mr.Anushasit Arya, Adv. for R-2
(Amicus Curiae)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner/complainant seeks direction to
cancel the bail of respondent no.2 in FIR No.676/2015 dated 09.09.2015
registered at Police Station Prasad Nagar for the offences punishable under
sections 394/397/34 and 174A IPC.
2. The brief facts of the petition are that on 08.05.2015 at about 10.15
PM, the respondent no. 2 along with three other persons forcefully entered
the office of the petitioner and by overpowering the petitioner, the
respondent no.2 alongwith the other co-accused committed robbery. In order
to do the same, the respondent no. 2 along with other co-accused stabbed the
petitioner with knife, poured liquid substance on his face to make him
unconscious and further tied his hands and left him to die in his office as the
petitioner was unconscious.
3. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the main
motive behind such criminal action was to rob the money from the office of
the petitioner, accordingly, the respondent no.2 along with his associates
succeeded in their act and they robbed around Rs.18,50,000/- from the office
of the petitioner. After committing the said offence, the respondent no.2
was absconding and declared as a proclaimed offender, thereafter, another
case under section 174A IPC was registered against him. The respondent
no.2 then approached the Trial Court for grant of bail on the basis of false
and misleading grounds. The Trial Court vide its order dated 22.02.2017,
wrongly granted bail to respondent no.2, thereby observing that the face of
respondent no.2 was not clearly visible and by giving weightage to plea of
alibi taken by respondent no.2.
4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits that the
respondent no.2 after obtaining bail, threatened the petitioner to withdraw
the criminal case against him and his associates. On 25.10.2017 when the
petitioner was standing outside the court, the accused/respondent no.2 came
to the petitioner and again asked him to withdraw the case. Accordingly, the
complainant/petitioner reported the same to Police officials of Police
Station, Subzi Mandi, Delhi and has given a written complaint to the SHO,
consequently, FIR No.296 /2017 was registered at the aforesaid Police
Station for the offence punishable under section 195A IPC. Thereafter, the
petitioner approached the Trial Court and filed an application for
cancellation of bail of respondent no.2, however, the same was dismissed
vide order dated 02.11.2018.
5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is continuous threat
coming from respondent no.2 and the said fact was brought to the notice of
the Trial Court and despite the fact that a case was registered against him
under section 195A IPC, the Trial Court did not cancel the bail granted to
respondent no. 2. Accordingly, prays to this Court that present petition may
be allowed.
6. On the other hand, it is pertinent to mention here that the respondent
no.2 appeared in person before this Court on 23.08.2019 and submitted that
due to financial constraints, he was unable to engage a counsel and prayed
that he may be provided a counsel from the legal aid to defend his case.
Accordingly, this Court approached Mr.Anusashit Arya, who was present in
court to defend respondent no.2 to which he agreed. Accordingly, he
submitted that in the case under section 195A IPC, the respondent no.2 has
been acquitted vide order dated 26.02.2019. The said fact has not been
brought to the notice of the Court by the counsel for petitioner.
7. On perusal of the order dated 26.02.2019 mentioned above, it reveals,
the Trial Court has observed as under:
"8. The entire case of prosecution is based upon
testimony of Sameer Mehta (PW-2). He has deposed in
his court statement that on 29.07.2017, he had come to
Tis Hazari court to attend the proceedings of case FIR
no.676/15, P.S. Prasad Nagar. That day, accused Santosh
threatened him with dire consequences. On 25.10.2017,
accused again repeated the threats. Thereafter, he made
a complaint Ex. PW2/B to SHO, P.S. Subzi Mandi.
11. The complainant has alleged that the accused
had threatened him for the first time on 29.07.2017. The
record shows that the complainant had made a complaint
in this regard on 25.10.2017 i.e. after three months of the
date when threats were extended for the first time. It has
not been elaborated by the complainant that why the
authorities were not intimated immediately. The delay in
filing of the complaint remained unexplained and it
would, in opinion of this court, affect the credibility of the
case of prosecution.
12. The complainant has not mentioned the exact
words used by the accused either in the complaint Ex.
PW2/A or in his court statement. Perusal of court
statement would show that only vague allegations that the
accused threatened him with dire consequences have
been leveled. During cross-examination, the complainant
had admitted that complaint was drafted by his lawyer.
Vague allegations in the complaint and the fact that same
was drafted by the lawyer indicates towards the
possibility that the story was concocted subsequently.
13. The ordersheet Ex. PW3/A and Ex. PW3/B
would show that an application for cancellation of bail of
the accused was pending before the ld. Sessions Court.
Record further shows that the case FIR no. 676/15 was
committed to Sessions Court on 06.01.2016. The
complainant has nowhere claimed that the accused had
ever threatened him between the period 06.01.2016 to
29.07.2017. Now, it appears highly improbable that the
accused would have threatened the complainant to
withdraw the case at a crucial time when an application
for cancellation of his bail was pending.
14. The real picture which emerges from the
circumstances is that the complainant had moved an
application for cancellation of bail of accused and to
ensure the cancellation of bail, he concocted the story of
threats and intimidation against the accused. The case of
prosecution is highly doubtful. Benefit of doubt is given to
accused. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted from the
charges for the offences U/s 195A IPC."
8. In view of the opinion of the Trial Court, it seems that the petitioner
had filed the complaint regarding threats by respondent no.2 for the purpose
of seeking cancellation of bail of respondent no.2.
9. On cancellation of bail, Mr. Anushasit Arya has relied upon the case
of Bhagirathsinh s/o Mahipat Singh Judeja vs. State of Gujarat: (1984) 1
SCC 284, wherein it has been held that "very cogent and overwhelming
circumstances are necessary for an order seeking cancellation of the bail
and the trend today is towards granting bail because it is now well-settled
by a catena of decisions of this court that the power to grant bail is not to be
exercised as if the punishment before trial is being imposed."
10. Further relied upon the case of Dolat Ram & Ors. vs. State of
Haryana: (1995) 1 SCC 349, whereby held that "rejection of bail in a non-
bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted,
have to be considered and delay with on different basis. Very cogent and
overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the
cancellation of the bail, already granted."
11. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court is of the opinion that
cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the appellant therein for the
reasons given by the High Court was not justified. Nothing has been
brought to their notice either from which any inference may possibly be
drawn that the appellants have in any manner, whatsoever, abused the
concession of bail during the intervening period.
12. It is not in dispute that the respondent no.2 had remained in jail for 9
months when he was granted bail vide order dated 22.02.2017. While
granting bail, the Trial Court has observed that the face of the respondent
no.2 was not clear in the CCTV footage, moreover, the complaint was filed
by the petitioner about 5-6 months after the date of advancing threat.
13. In view of above, I find no illegality and perversity in the order passed
by the Trial Court.
14. Finding no merit in the present petition, the same is accordingly
dismissed.
15. Before parting from this order, I hereby appreciate the assistance
rendered by Mr.Anushasit Arya, Advocate who was appointed as amicus by
this Court vide order dated 23.08.2019.
16. Accordingly, Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee
is directed to pay him Rs.25,000/- as fees.
17. It is made clear that Trial Court shall not get influenced by the
observations made by this Court while disposing of the present petition.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 13, 2019
ab
