Rajasthan High Court
Union Of India vs Fakruddin Quereshi S/O Shri ... on 18 August, 2021
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 123/2020
Union Of India, Through P.P.
----Petitioner
Versus
Fakruddin Quereshi S/o Shri Nizammuddin Qureshi, Aged About
40 Years, R/o Near Kapas Mill Vpo-Bali Distt. Pali Raj. Holder Of
Passport No J9573631
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anand Sharma, through VC
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh, through VC, for
Mr. Hridayesh Singh
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
18/08/2021
The application under Section 439(2) seeking cancellation of
bail granted to the accused-petitioner under Section 439 CrPC by
the Court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic
offences), Jaipur Metropolitan-II, vide order dated 11.11.2020,
has been filed by the applicant.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that while
extending the accused respondent benefit of bail, learned trial
Court did not consider the notification No.36/2015-2020 dated
18.12.2019. Relying on a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case Kumer Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr.
(MANU/SC/0483/2021) decided on 20.07.2021, he submitted that
since the order impugned is based on irrelevant consideration, the
same deserves to be quashed and set aside and the bail extended
to the accused respondent deserves to be cancelled. He further
(2 of 3) [CRLBC-122/2020]
submitted that learned trial Court erred in passing the order
impugned taking into consideration the quantity of prohibited
article recovered from the possession of accused respondent as
the offence under Section 135 is punishable irrespective of the
quantity of the prohibited article.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposed the
prayer and submitted that the order impugned does not suffer
from any illegality or perversity warranting its cancellation and
hence, the bail cancellation application deserves to be dismissed.
Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the
record.
A perusal of the impugned order reveals that accused
respondent has been extended benefit of bail taking into
consideration the relevant factors. It has been observed by the
learned trial Court that the accused respondent did not have any
criminal antecedents and he was in judicial custody since long.
The weight of prohibited article recovered from his possession was
also taken into consideration while extending benefit of bail. In so
far as contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that
quantity of the prohibited article recovered from possession of the
accused respondent was not a relevant criteria, is concerned, this
Court is of the opinion that the sentence provided under Section
135 of the Act of 1962 may extend upto 7 years and hence, it
cannot be said that quantity of the prohibited article has no nexus
with the severity of punishment. The accused respondent was
extended benefit of bail vide order dated 11.11.2020 and it has
not been a case of petitioner that he has tampered with the
evidence, has tried to influence the investigation in any manner or
has indulged in offence of similar nature again. It is well
(3 of 3) [CRLBC-122/2020]
established principle of law that parameters for cancellation of bail
stand altogether on different altar than the consideration for grant
of bail and benefit of bail granted by a competent Court should not
be cancelled by a higher Court in a mechanical manner unless the
order impugned stands vitiated on account of being influenced by
irrelevant consideration, perversity or non-application of mind.
This Court does not find any irregularity or perversity in the order
dated 11.11.2020 extending the accused respondent benefit of
bail and hence, the bail cancellation application is dismissed
devoid of merit.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
DANISH USMANI /04
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
