BAIL APPLN./1877/2015 of BALBIR SINGH Vs THE STATE ( GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+BAIL APPLN. 1877/2015BALBIR SINGH..... PetitionerBALBIR SINGH..... Petitioner

..... Petitioner

ThroughMr.Aman Saroha & Mr.JaideepMalik, Advs.

versus

THE STATE ( GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)..... RespondentThroughMr. M.P. Singh, APP for the state.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMARO R R%09.09.2015

The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with FIRNo.325/2014 (PS Jahangir Puri) instituted for offence under Sections498A/304B of the IPC.

The petitioner is the father-in-law of the deceased. The son of thepetitioner namely Ajay Singh, after institution of the case, was arrested.

The investigation of the case led to the submission of final reportunder Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. wherein the petitioner also was arrayed inthe column of the accused persons.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there was amistake by the police for the reason that during the entire period ofinvestigation, neither the petitioner was summoned under Section 161 of theCr.P.C. by the police nor was he arrested.

The petitioner did not approach any court for seeking protection

against arrest. It has been submitted that since the petitioner was not lookedfor during the stage of investigation by the police, he was sanguine that hewill not be sent up for trial.

Perhaps for this reason, no summons were issued against him underSection 204 of the Cr.P.C. when the chargesheet was acted upon by thelearned Magistrate. It is submitted that the case of the petitioner was noteven committed to the Court of Sessions. This contention has been furtherbuttressed by the fact that charged were also not framed against thepetitioner.

In the Trial Court, some of the witnesses were examined. Thereafter,an application was filed under Section 193 of the Cr.P.C. by the prosecutionfor summoning the petitioner. By order dated 13.05.2015, the petitioner hasbeen summoned to face trial.

It has been submitted that weird procedure was adopted by the TrialCourt and instead of applying its mind over the materials which came beforethe Trial Court through the mouth of the witnesses, for summoning thepetitioner under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., summons were issued underSection 193 of the Cr.P.C.

It is further submitted that the order dated 13.05.2015 has not yet beenchallenged.

There appears to be some confusion in as much as no cognizance wastaken against the petitioner and he was not even summoned under Section204 of the Cr.P.C.

This predicates that the case of the petitioner was not committed tothe Court of Sessions for trial.

The petitioner prayed for anticipatory bail before the Additional

Sessions Judge which was rejected vide order dated 24.08.2015 on theground that the application was not maintainable before that Court.

As against the aforesaid order dated 24.08.2015, the petitioner hasapproached this Court.

The petitioner is directed to approach the Trial Court for such relief asthe Trial Court has summoned the petitioners to face trial along with otheraccused persons.

The petitioner is permitted to withdraw this application in order toenable him to file fresh application before the Trial Court.

The petitioner shall file an application within period of 10 days fromtoday and on filing of such application, the Trial Court would consider thatno cognizance was taken against the petitioner and he was not evensummoned at the stage of 204 of the Cr.P.C. The Court below will not beinfluenced or prejudiced by the fact that the present application has not beenmaintained and would decide the application in accordance with law aftergoing through the facts and allegations levelled against the petitioner.

Petition is permitted to be withdrawn.

Till filing of such petition, no coercive action shall be taken against

the petitioner.

Dasti.

SEPTEMBER 09, 2015ab

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J