On 9th June, a bench of Delhi High Court consisting of Justice Rekha Palli, in the case of Sheikh Rahim @SANVAR @ANVAR vs. The State of NCT Delhi, held that a petitioner cannot be denied the benefit available to him under the recommendations made by High Powered Committee (HPC) Guidelines merely on the ground that the other co-accused are absconding. The court also held that each case is required to be considered on its own merits by taking into consideration the guidelines laid down by the HPC.
Facts of the case:
The present application was filed by the petitioner under section 439 Cr. PC seeking interim bail for a period of 45 days on the ground that his case is covered by the High Powered Committee (HPC) guidelines. The petitioner was in the case was charged under Section 302/34 IPC.
Submissions of the petitioner:
Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted the following:
- The petitioner had clean antecedents and has never been involved previously in any case.
- It was also submitted that the petitioner had already spent more than two years as an under-trial prisoner, having been in custody since 24.05.2019 and that the charge sheet against the petitioner already stands filed.
- Thus, it was prayed that the petitioner be granted interim suspension of sentence for a period of 45 days in accordance with the guidelines issued by the High Powered Committee of this Court.
Submissions of the respondent:
Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent opposed the application on the ground that the petitioner is charged with a heinous offence under Section 302 IPC and if he was released on bail, there was a likelihood that he would tamper with the ongoing investigation against the other four co-accused, who were stated to be still absconding.
Order of the court:
- The petitioner was found by the court to be certified good and he was not alleged to be previously involved in any case.
- It was also viewed that merely because the other co-accused are absconding, cannot be a ground to deny the petitioner the benefit available under the recommendations made by the HPC.
- The bench also did not find any reason to believe the bold statement of the respondent that in case the petitioner is released on interim bail, he would tamper with the investigation.
Accordingly, the petition was allowed and a 45 days interim bail was granted to the petitioner subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with a surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent.
Read Order @Latestlaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
