CRL.M.C./5176/2024 of GURMIT SINGH Vs STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

Signature Not Verified

$~6*INTHEHIGHCOURTOFDELHIATNEWDELHI%Judgment delivered on: 08.01.2025*INTHEHIGHCOURTOFDELHIATNEWDELHI%Judgment delivered on: 08.01.2025

+CRL.M.C. 5176/2024GURMIT SINGH.....PetitionerThrough:Mr. Tushar Mahajan, Mr. SharanMehta, Mr. Bhavaan Mahajan and Mr.Tanmay Surana, Advs.GURMIT SINGH.....PetitionerThrough:Mr. Tushar Mahajan, Mr. SharanMehta, Mr. Bhavaan Mahajan and Mr.Tanmay Surana, Advs.

versus

STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR......RespondentsThrough:Mr. Aman Usman, APP for State withSI Vandana, PS. Moti Nagar.Mr. Indraj Singh and Mr. KamalSingh, Advs. for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN

JUDGMENT

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J. (ORAL)

1.The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482CrPC read with Section 439(2) CrPC seeking cancellation of anticipatory bailgranted to the respondent no.2 vide impugned order dated 12.07.2023.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner has impugned the order grantingbail to the respondent no.2 on two counts. Firstly, the petitioner/complainantwas not put to notice before granting bail to the respondent no.2. Secondly,the gravity of the offence was not considered.

3.In support of his contention, the learned counsel places reliance on thedecision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagjeet Singh vs. Ashish Mishraalias Monu & Anr, (2022) 9 SCC 321.

4.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2/accusedsubmits that the FIR was registered on 16.07.2017 whereas the chargesheet

Signature Not Verified

came to be filed on 31.07.2021, without arresting the respondent no.2/accusedin the present case.

5.He further invites attention of the Court to the order dated 08.07.2023of the learned ASJ whereby anticipatory bail was granted to the co-accusedRashpal Singh, to contend that in the said order it has been recorded by thelearned ASJ that the I.O has stated that no custodial interrogation of theaccused/applicant is required.

6.He further submits that bail in the present case was granted by thelearned Trial Court on 12.07.2023 whereas the application seekingcancellation has been filed in February 2024 and the same was rejected videorder dated 01.06.2024. He submits that no supervening circumstance hasbeen pointed out by the petitioner for seeking cancellation of bail.

7.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as, thelearned counsel for the respondent no.2 and have perused the record.

8.It is not in dispute that the charge sheet in the present case was filed bythe police without arresting the respondent no.2 in the present case.

9.The law is well settled that where prosecution does not require custodyof the accused, there is no need for arrest when the case is sent to theMagistrate under Section 170 Cr.PC. Further, there is not even need forfiling bail application. Reference in this regard may be had to the decision ofthe Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar AntilVs. CBI & Anr.,

(2022) 10 SCC 51. The relevant part of the decision reads thus:

“43. The scope and ambit of Section 170 has already been dealt withby this Court in Siddharth v. State of U.P.[(2022) 1 SCC 676]. Thisis power which is to be exercised by the court after the completionof the investigation by the agency concerned. Therefore, this is aprocedural compliance from the point of view of the court alone, andby this Court in Siddharth v. State of U.P.[(2022) 1 SCC 676]. Thisis power which is to be exercised by the court after the completionof the investigation by the agency concerned. Therefore, this is aprocedural compliance from the point of view of the court alone, and

thus the investigating agency has got limited role to play. In casewhere the prosecution does not require custody of the accused,there is no need for an arrest when case is sent to the Magistrateunder Section 170 of the Code. There is not even need for filing abail application, as the accused is merely forwarded to the court forthe framing of charges and issuance of process for trial. If the courtis of the view that there is no need for any remand, then the court canfall back upon Section 88 of the Code and complete the formalitiesrequiredtosecurethepresenceoftheaccusedforthecommencement of the trial. Of course, there may be situationwhere remand may be required, it is only in such cases that theaccused will have to be heard. Therefore, in such situation, anopportunity will have to be given to the accused persons, if the courtis of the prima facie view that the remand would be required. Wemake it clear that we have not said anything on the cases in which theaccused persons are already in custody, for which, the bailapplication has to be decided on its own merits. Suffice it to state thatfor due compliance of Section 170 of the Code, there is no need forfiling of bail application.”

(emphasis supplied)

10.In view of the above legal position, there was no reason for therespondent no.2 to even file bail application seeking anticipatory bail sincethe charge sheet had been filed without arrest of any accused in the presentcase. Concomitantly, there was no need for the Court to put the complainantto notice.

11.Further, the bail was granted to the respondent no.2 as early as on12.07.2023 and it has not been pointed out that the liberty granted to thepetitioner has ever been misused. It is equally well settled that bail oncegranted, should not be cancelled in mechanical manner without consideringwhether any supervening circumstances have rendered it is no longerconducive to fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying

Signature Not Verified

the concession of bail during trial[1]. Thus, in case of cancellation of bail, verycogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directingcancellation of bail that has already been granted. As noted above, no suchcircumstances have been pointed out in the present case.

12.For the aforesaid reason, this Court does not find any ground forcancellation of bail granted to the respondent no.2.

13.Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J

JANUARY 8, 2025/dss

1 Deepak Yadav vs. State of U.P, (2022) 8 SCC 559.