Delhi High Court - Orders
Partap Singh vs The State Govt Of Nct Delhi on 18 October, 2022
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~65 & 66
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 3099/2022
PARTAP SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Gurinder Pal Singh and Ms.Jaya
Bajpai, Advocates.
versus
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Utkarsh, APP for State.
+ BAIL APPLN. 3106/2022
NIRPAL SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Gurinder Pal Singh and Ms.Jaya
Bajpai, Advocates.
versus
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Utkarsh, APP for State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
ORDER
% 18.10.2022 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRATIMA Signing Date:21.10.2022 12:47:16 -2-
1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants. Since both the applications relate to the same set of facts therefore, the same are being decided by a common order.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that the applicants received a notice from the Economic Offence Cell, Surat, Gujarat. The notice in question were in Gujarati language, the applicants requested the concerned Economic Offence Cell for English translation. No English translation was furnished to the applicants rather a second notice dated 31.08.2022 was received by the applicants.
2. The applicants on 18.09.2022, responded to the said notice and instead of any consideration to the request made by the applicants, they were again served with a third notice dated 21.09.2022.
3. On 22.09.2022, the applicants requested the concerned Economic Offence Cell for furnishing of supporting documents assuring their willingness to assist the on-going investigation. There was no response received by the applicants in pursuance to the letter dated 22.09.2022.
4. Perusal of notice dated 11.08.2022, shows that one Abhishekh S/o. Yudhisthir Batra, filed application against the applicants. The said application prima facie relates to the averment that there was purchase of textile goods worth Rs.91,92,574/- from Abhishekh S/o. Yudhisthir Batra, however, the payment to the said purchase has allegedly not been made.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that on the basis of 3 consecutive notices, his clients have sufficient reason to believe that the applicants would be taken into custody by the concerned police station. He places reliance on the on a decision of the Constitutional Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRATIMA Signing Date:21.10.2022 12:47:16 -3- Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Etc vs State Of Punjab1. While placing reliance on paragraph 42, he submits that the formal registration of FIR is not a condition to exercise power under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C
6. Learned APP for the State submits that the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case relied upon by the applicants in paragraph No. 40 states that mere fear is not belief and therefore, the application for grant of anticipatory bail should not be considered. According to him, there has to be sufficient reason based on some material to indicate that the accused may be arrested for a non-bailable offence. According to him, the concerned police station is also not a party in the instant application therefore, this application is not maintainable. Learned APP for the State further places reliance on paragraph 47 of the above said decision to say that a blanket order of anticipatory bail is bound to cause serious interference in the matter of investigation.
7. This court is of the opinion that the three consecutive notices issued to the applicants constitute sufficient cause for apprehending their arrest in connection with the allegation stated in the notices by the concerned police station. The apprehension is not ill founded. The same is based on sufficient material. It is therefore, considered apposite to accept the prayer for grant of transit bail however, the same cannot be a blanket order, therefore, the following terms and conditions are imposed.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRATIMA Signing Date:21.10.2022 12:47:16 -4-(i) The applicants shall not be arrested for a period of 30 days. This order will not operate beyond 30 days from today.
(ii) The applicants in the meantime, are at liberty to apply for bail before the competent court in accordance with law.
8. With the aforesaid directions, the applications stand allowed.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J OCTOBER 18, 2022/MJ 1 1980 SCC (2) 565 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRATIMA Signing Date:21.10.2022 12:47:16