Delhi High Court
Shahnaz Begum vs State on 4 August, 2020
SINDHU KRISHNAKUMAR
05.08.2020 21:58
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 4th August, 2020
+ BAIL APPLN. 1633/2020 and CRL.M.A. 8984/2020
SHAHNAZ BEGUM ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sumit Choudhary, Advocate (M:
9999318211).
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Rebecca M. John, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Vishal Gosain, Advocate
(Public Prosecutors) along with Ms.
Maulshree Pathak, Advocate.
Mr. Raghuvinder Verma, APP.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been held through video conferencing.
2. The Petitioner in this case seeks interim bail on the strength of the
Minutes of the High-Powered Committee dated 18th May, 2020. Mr. Sumit
Choudhary, ld. counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that this is the
first case against the Petitioner, who is a lady, and no other cases are
pending against her. She has also been in custody for more than two years.
He therefore submits that she meets all the conditions laid down in the
Minutes of the High-Powered Committee.
3. Ms. Rebecca M. John, Sr. Adv and ld. Special Public Prosecutor
opposes the grant of interim bail on the ground that the victim was a 21-
year-old boy whose throat was slit by the Petitioner's husband in
collaboration with the Petitioner. In fact, she submits that both the co-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:05.08.2020 20:56
accused, who are majors, are still in custody and the nature of the offence
does not deserve interim bail.
4. Having gone through the facts in this case, the rejection order by the
ld. Trial Court and the submissions of the parties, it is clear that the trial is at
an advanced stage. 23 witnesses have been examined and only five
witnesses are left.
5. The Petitioner vehemently relies on the Minutes of the High powered
committee. However, a perusal thereof shows that mere satisfaction of the
conditions would not automatically entitle a person for bail. The relevant
portion of the Minutes is extracted below:
"...On bare perusal of the observations/directions
given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order
dated 23.03.2020, it is apparent that the High
Powered Committee so constituted was given an
absolute discretion to determine which
class/category of the prisoners can be released on
interim bail or parole depending not only upon the
severity of the offence, but also the nature of
offence or any other relevant factor. It is further
apparent on perusal of the subsequent order dated
13.04.2020 of Hon'ble Supreme Court whereby it
was clarified that it has not directed the
States/Union Territories to compulsorily release
the prisoners from their respective prisons.
Thus, no prisoner in whatsoever
category/class he falls and whatever nature of
offence he is facing trial, can seek or claim to be
released from prison as a matter of right.
...
Consequently, the applicants are at liberty
to file bail applications for their clients before the
concerned Courts, which as and when filed, may
be considered on merits, in accordance with law."
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:05.08.2020 20:56
6. The Minutes of the High-Powered Committee are recommendatory in
nature and have to be applied to the specific facts of each case. The Court
considering the application for bail has the discretion to consider the merits
of each matter in accordance with law.
7. Considering the gravity of the offence and the manner in which the
victim is alleged to have been killed, as also the threat perception to the
victim's family, this Court is not inclined to grant the request for interim
bail.
8. Accordingly, the petition is rejected. All pending applications are
disposed of. Nothing stated herein should affect the proceedings before the
Trial Court.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
AUGUST 04, 2020
MR/T
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:05.08.2020 20:56
