Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Pardeep Singh vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 21 January, 2022

Author: Chandra Dhari Singh

Bench: Chandra Dhari Singh

                          $~18
                          *       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +       BAIL APPLN. 244/2022
                                  PARDEEP SINGH                                    ..... Petitioner
                                                     Through:    Mr. Aman Bhalla, Mr. Vivek Sandhu
                                                                 and Mr. Aman Tehlan, Advocates

                                                     versus

                                  STATE OF NCT OF DELHI                            ..... Respondent
                                                Through:         Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP, SI Rupesh
                                                                 Raj P.S. Ashok Vihar.

                                  CORAM:
                                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH
                                          ORDER

% 21.01.2022 (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) CRL.M.A. 1345/2022 Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.

1. The instant application under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail in FIR bearing no. 6151/2020 dated 21st February 2020 registered at Police Station Ashok Vihar for the offences punishable under Sections 379/411/420/467/468/471/482/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the month of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 244/2022 Page 1 of 6 By:DAMINI YADAV Signing Date:24.01.2022 15:45:04 January, 2020, the petitioner herein met Naveen @ Sonu, who was running a firm under the name of "Ranaji Motors". Naveen @ Sonu informed the petitioner that he deals in second-hand cars. Believing the representations made by Naveen @ Sonu, the petitioner purchased a Ford Endeavour car from him bearing no. HR10/TMP/2019/36859. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a Director of Sawariya Associates, which works for building construction etc. The FIR in question for the aforementioned Sections got registered at Police Station Ashok Vihar against unknown persons in relation to the theft of the car bearing Registration No. HR22M5454, Engine No. 06681, in which the petitioner has been falsely implicated. Learned counsel further submitted that on the statement of one co-accused Naveen @ Sonu, who alleged that the petitioner was his partner in respect of the purchase of those vehicles, the petitioner was wrongly roped in the case. He has committed no offence and he himself is the victim of the said criminal case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the co-accused Naveen @ Sonu has already been granted regular bail by the court below vide order dated 10th August 2021 and seeks bail for the petitioner on the ground of parity. It is submitted that the petitioner has always co-operated in the investigation and appeared as and when required by the Investigating Agency. The petitioner preferred the anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court in the instant FIR but the same was rejected vide order dated 13 th April 2021. Thereafter, he moved second bail application which was also rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 8th May 2021. On instruction, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner shall abide by any condition imposed by this Court while granting bail. He also undertakes to co-operate in the investigation as and when called by the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 244/2022 Page 2 of 6 By:DAMINI YADAV Signing Date:24.01.2022 15:45:04 Investigating Officer.

3. Per Contra, Ms. Kusum Dhalla, learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail and submitted to the effect that the petitioner never co-operated in the investigation as is also reflected in the order of learned Trial Court while rejecting the anticipatory bail application. On instructions, it is informed that Non-Bailable Warrants were issued against the petitioner on 26th November 2020 and he has been declared Proclaimed Offender vide order dated 22nd February 2021. It is submitted that the first bail application by the petitioner was filed in the month of April 2021 and second bail application was filed in the month of May 2021 and after lapse of more than 7 months i.e. in January 2022, the instant petition has been filed. It is vehemently submitted that due to non-cooperation of the petitioner, the investigation got delayed and chargesheet has not been filed in the present FIR till date. In view of all the facts and circumstances, no ground is available to the petitioner seeking discretion of this Court for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, it is prayed that the present petition is devoid of any merit and same is liable to be dismissed.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the FIR.

5. I have perused the orders dated 13th April 2021 and 8th May 2021 passed by the Sessions Court. For proper adjudication of the matter, the reasoning given by learned Additional Sessions Court while rejecting the anticipatory bail applications of the petitioner are reproduced hereinafter:-

Order dated 13th April 2021 "*** In view of the above submission and on direction, the original affidavit in support of present application has been filed and on being further enquired from the Ld. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 244/2022 Page 3 of 6 By:DAMINI YADAV Signing Date:24.01.2022 15:45:04 Counsel for applicant that whether the applicant/accused had been using mobile phone keeping in view the averments made in para no. 6, 15, 16, 18 and 19, then Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused after seeking the instruction provided two mobile numbers of the present applicant/accused. In compliance of direction vide order dated 02.03.2021, the fresh report has been filed by the IO with the averment that the first notice under Section 160 Cr. PC has been served upon the accused on 10.10.2020. Further IO investigate the matter with the applicant/accused as he has gone Meerut for further investigation of the case alongwith co-accused Naveen @ Soni and to that effect, DD Entry no. 37 A dated 11.10.2020 has been annexed. Thereafter, Notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. has been served upon the applicant/accused on 15.10.2020 with direction to appear before the IO at 4:00 PM, but accused did not join the investigation on the given date and time.

Subsequently, NBWs against the accused have been got issued against the applicant/accused. Consequently, he has been declared PO on 22.02.2021 whereas the applicant/accused came to know about the pendency of present FIR first time when on 14.01.2021 by PS Ashok Vihar visited his residence at Sonepat in his absence and threatened his family members for the arrest of the present applicant/accused. It has been submitted that the co-accused Naveen @ Soni made disclosure statement about the involvement of the present applicant/accused in the present case (as per averments made in the application, para no. 8 and 9 of the present application).

Today, the IO has explained that he has only issued one notice u/s 160 Cr. PC to the accused on 10.10.2020 for 15.10.2020, but the accused approached to the PS on 11.10.2020, when he went to the Meerut for further investigation of the present case.

Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that since the present applicant/ accused has never joined the investigation before the IO of the case despite service of notice and no plausible reason has been mentioned why he has not joined the investigation on 15.10.2020 and even after issuance of NBW, therefore subsequently the present applicant/accused had declared PO on 22.02.2021. Moreover, the offence are serious in nature, hence I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the accused. Accordingly, the present applicant of bail is dismissed."

ORDER dated 8th May 2021 " *** Per contra, Ld. Addl. PP for the State has opposed this application that the earlier bail application of the applicant/accused has already been dismissed vide order dated 13.04.2021 and there is no change of circumstances has been pleaded. In view of his submissions, Ld. APP has relied upon the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "G.R. Ananda Babu v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. In Crl. Appeal 213/2021 decided on 28.01.2021"

Considering the facts that there is no change of circumstances in the present bail application after the dismissal of earlier application, as such the present application is not maintainable in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case title as "G.R. Ananda Babu v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., hence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant/accused at this stage. Accordingly, the present bail application is dismissed."

6. It is noticed that the petitioner has already been declared a Proclaimed Offender vide order dated 22nd February 2021 and the said order is still in Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 244/2022 Page 5 of 6 By:DAMINI YADAV Signing Date:24.01.2022 15:45:04 operation. The petitioner is not co-operating in the investigation and due to this reason neither the investigation has been completed nor the chargesheet has been filed in the case.

7. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the application for applying its discretion to grant anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J JANUARY 21, 2022 Aj/ct Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 244/2022 Page 6 of 6 By:DAMINI YADAV Signing Date:24.01.2022 15:45:04