In CRL.MC. 1731/2020-DEL HC- Order granting bail cannot be construed to have any bearing on merits of case during trial which is conducted and concluded as per law on basis of detailed examination of evidence on record: Delhi HC
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma [05-01-2023]

Read Order: STATE v. MOHD. NAVED@PILLA 

Mansimran Kaur

New Delhi, January 6, 2023: The Delhi High Court has opined that under Section 437(3) CrPC, one of the inherent conditions is not to indulge in similar criminal activities under which the accused is being granted bail, however the same cannot be resorted to in a complete mechanical manner to cancel the bails already granted to accused persons, in as much as such an order curtails the liberty of an individual as guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed the present application preferred by the applicant /State  under Sections 439(2) read with 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking cancellation of bail granted to accused/respondent Mohd. Naved@Pilla in case pertaining to Sections 302/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The case of the applicant was  that the respondent Mohd. Naved @ Pilla misused the liberty granted by the Court and started getting involved in serious criminal activities and flouted the conditions of bail. It was further submitted by the  APP for State that while the respondent was out on bail, an FIR under Sections 394/427/506/34 of IPC was registered on June 11, 2020 against the respondent and his family members for robbing the shop of a person namely Akhlakh, who stated that one Mohd. Sadkeen used to take eatables from his shop without paying the same and when he raised his voice against it, Mohd. Sadkeen started beating him and he was joined by his family members including the respondent herein, and all of them then destroyed his shop.

Further, when the complainant went to the police station to register his complaint regarding the said incident, the accused persons pelted the stones at the police officials also.

From the State’s side it was further  submitted  that on the same day, another FIR  under Sections 186/353/307/34 of IPC and Sections 27 and 54 of the Arms Act, 1959 was also registered against the respondent on the complaint of SI Pankaj Thakaran who was posted as I/C PP Inderlok, wherein he stated that while he was addressing the dispute among the parties, the respondent started verbally abusing the police officers and he was even carrying a gun while he entered the premises and had fired shots. He also stated that the respondent along with the other accused persons attacked the staff posted at PP Inderlok in which he sustained injuries. 

The issue before the Bench was whether the bail granted to the respondent can  be cancelled or not.  In view of the same, reference was made to Section 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C. 

Further the Bench referred to the judgments in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. & Investigation v. Subramani Gopalakrishnan & Anr.

Reverting to the present case, the Bench noted, “Though the applicant referred to Section 437(3) Cr.P.C. where one of the inherent conditions was  not to indulge in similar criminal activities, the same cannot be resorted to in a complete mechanical manner to cancel the bails already granted to accused persons, in as much as such an order curtails the liberty of an individual as guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India”.

The Bench considered the fact that the FIR was registered on August 25, 2015, and since then, the accused remained in judicial custody till the time he was granted bail on October 10, 2018. The subsequent FIRs dated June 11, 2020 were registered 1 year and 8 months, post the order granting bail and 5 years post the registration of FIR in the present case. 

The applicant had not brought to the notice of this Court any connection, whatsoever, between the case registered in 2015 and the cases registered in 2020 against the respondent. Moreover, no suggestion was made that commission of subsequent offences have any bearing on the fair trial of the present case, the Court noted. 

The Bench said, “There is no gainsaying that an order granting bail cannot be construed to have any bearing on the merits of a case during the trial which is conducted and concluded as per law on the basis of detailed examination of evidence on record.”

The applicant/State, while preferring the present application for cancellation of bail on the ground of subsequent involvement of respondent in another crime, seeks to challenge the order granting bail on the ground of perversity, two years after the said order was passed, the Bench noticed.

The Bench was not inclined to interfere with the order  vide which the respondent was granted bail, especially when four years had  already passed from the date of grant of bail, at the time when the present application was  being decided by this Court. In view of such observations, the petition was dismissed.