Delhi High Court
Khalik Rahman (Ahmad) vs State on 9 January, 2020
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 09.01.2020
+ CRL.REV.P. 1056/2019
KHALIK RAHMAN (AHMAD) ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shantanu Sharma, Adv.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Panna Lal Sharma, APP for State.
Mr. Parul Goel, s/o Roshal Lal Goel
Insp. C. R. Meena, SHO, SI Sunder
Singh, PS BHD Nagar
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks direction thereby to
quash the order dated 18.03.2019 passed in B.M. Number 1268 of 2019
passed by Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Dwarka.
2. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR bearing No. 75 of 2018 was
registered on 13/4/2018 against the Petitioner and 3 other accused persons.
The role of the Petitioner is limited to introducing the complainant to the
other accused persons and no involvement of the Petitioner in the
commission of crime has been alleged.
3. The petitioner moved an application under section 437 before the Ld.
MM, Dwarka as the petitioner was in custody since 30.5.2018, he was
granted bail vide order dated 08.06.2018.
4. The other accused persons i.e. Sumer Chand Joshan, Sunil Kumar
Joshan and Anil Kumar Joshan entered into an MOU with the complainant
and vide order dated 17.07.2018 were granted conditional bail based on the
cheques issued to the complainant and the assurance to pay Rs. 1.55 crores
in future.
5. The complainant moved the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarka
in B.M. No. 1268/19 seeking cancellation of bail for all accused persons as
the cheques issued by Sumer Chand Joshan for Rs. 30 lakhs were
dishonored. However, the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge being unmindful
of the fact that the bail granted to the Petitioner was unconditional and he
had not even signed the MOU or issued the cheques cancelled the bail of the
Petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not
even issued notice or made aware of the application for cancellation of bail
or he would have brought the accurate facts to the notice of the Ld.
Additional Sessions Judge.
7. The Petitioner found out about the order of Ld. Additional Sessions
Judge on 20.07.2019 when NBW were issued against the Petitioner and the
Petitioner sought their cancellation.
8. On finding out about the order dated 18.03.2019, the Petitioner sought
modification of order dated 18.03.2019, however the Ld. MM was not
inclined to interfere as the appropriate remedy against the order is in
Revision Petition. Therefore, the application for modification/correction was
withdrawn, thus, the present petition is filed.
9. I note that in order dated 08.06.2018 an application under Section 437
Cr.P.C., learned MM, Dwarka, New Delhi while granting bail recorded that
the role of petitioner herein is that "he merely introduced the complainant
with the accused persons. Apart from this, accused has neither received any
paddy from the complainant nor has any role to play in the monetary
transactions between the complainant and the petitioner herein."
10. Keeping into that situation, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and
the learned Additional Sessions Judge would have applied mind to the facts
and role of the petitioner in case FIR No.75/2018.
11. However, keeping in view the role of the petitioner, I hereby quash
the order dated 18.03.2019 and further direct that the order dated 08.06.2018
passed by learned MM shall remain in force.
12. The petitioner is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
13. Order dasti.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE
JANUARY 09, 2020
ms
