Delhi District Court
Praveen Kumar @ Shyam vs The State on 12 October, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF SURINDER KUMAR SHARMA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - NORTH EAST
KARKARDOOMA COURTS:DELHI
Praveen Kumar @ Shyam
S/o Sh. Balbir Singh
R/o Bhavigarh, P.S. Barla,
Tehsil Atroli, District Aligarh, U.P.
.......... Revisionist
Vs.
1. The State
(Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi),
New Delhi.
2. Smt. Bhoopeshwari Devi
W/o Sh. Praveen Kumar @ Shyam
D/o Sh. Ram Charan Verma
R/o C260/1, Gali No.12,
Bhajanpura, Delhi110053
...........Respondents.
FIR No. 57/2011
U/ss 498A/406/34 IPC
P.S. Bhajanpura
Criminal Revision No. : 52/2011
Date of Institution : 06.09.2011
Date of Arguments : 05.10.2011
Date of Order : 12.10.2011
Criminal Revision No. 52/2011 Page 1 /7
2
O R D E R :
The present revision is filed by the Revisionist Praveen Kumar @ Shyam for setting aside the impugned orders dated 01.07.2011 passed by Ms. Shuchi Laler, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts and dated 23.8.2011 passed by Ms. Savitri, M.M. Karkardooma Courts. Vide order dated 23.8.2011 Ld. M.M. rejected the application moved by the Revisionist for modification of the interim bail order dated 1.7.2011.
Briefly stated the facts are that FIR No. 57/2011 u/ss 498 A/406/34 IPC read with section 3 & 4 Dowry Prohibition Act was registered in the Police Station Bhajanpura on the complaint of one Smt. Bhoopeshwari Devi against the Revisionist Praveen Kumar @ Shyam and others.
During investigation, the Revisionist Praveen Kumar @ Shyam was arrested on 25.6.2011.
Vide the impugned order dated 1.7.2011, the Revisionist Praveen Kumar @ Shyam was granted interim bail till 16.7.2011 by Ms. Shuchi Laler Ld. M.M. on furnishing personal bond and surety bond of Rs.15,000/. The said interim bail was extended till 20.8.2011 vide orders dated 16.7.2011 and dated 4.8.2011. The perusal of the bail Criminal Revision No. 52/2011 Page 2 /7 3 order dated 1.7.2011 reveals that Ld. Magistrate has observed that the parties were willing to settle the matter, so she directed the parties to appear before the Mediator on 4.7.2011.
During the course of arguments on the bail application, the Ld. Counsel for the Revisionist has submitted that the Revisionist was willing to pay Rs. 3 lacs to the petitioner.
However, the matter could not be settled and thereafter the Revisionist herein moved an application dated 13.7.2011 for modification of the bail order dated 1.7.2011 and to waive the condition to make the payment of Rs.3 lacs to the complainant. It was submitted in the application by the Revisionist that he never authorised his counsel to make such statement regarding the payment of Rs. 3 lacs to the complainant as he was not able to make the payment and due to this reason, his anticipatory bail was rejected and he has surrendered before the court. Vide order dated 23.8.2011 the application of the Revisionist for modification of bail order and for waiving of the condition of payment of Rs.3 lacs to the complainant was dismissed.
Aggrieved by the said impugned orders, the Revisionist challenged the impugned order mainly on the following grounds :
i ) That the Ld. Trial Court did not apply her judicial mind before rejecting the application.Criminal Revision No. 52/2011 Page 3 /7 4
ii ) That the Ld. Trial Court did not consider the facts and circumstances of the case and rejected the bail application in the mechanical manner.
iii) That the Ld. Trial Court did not consider the fact that the anticipatory bail was moved by the Revisionist before the Sessions Court where the matter was sent for reconciliation before the Mediation Cell, there the complainant demanded the money but the Revisionist failed to fulfill the requirement of complainant and as such, the anticipatory bail application was rejected.
iv) That when the bail application was moved by his counsel before Ld. Trial Court, the applicant/Revisionist was in jail. His counsel did not take the consent of the Revisionist whether he was willing to make the payment or not.
1. v) That the Ld. Trial Court did not consider the fact that the recovery of the dowry articles had already been effected.
I have heard Sh.R.S. Goswami Counsel for the Revisionist and Sh. Atul Kumar Srivatava Addl. P.P. for State/Respondent1 and Sh. M.K. Bhardwaj Advocate for Respondent No.2. I have also perused the file and the trial court record.
It was contended by Ld. Counsel for the Revisionist that the Ld. Trial Court has passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner and without application of mind. It was further submitted that the order passed by Ld. Trial Court is illegal, bad in law and hence it liable to be aside. It was further contended that the Ld. Trial Court has not appreciated the facts of the case before passing the impugned order as Criminal Revision No. 52/2011 Page 4 /7 5 it failed to consider the fact that the Revisionist never authorised his counsel to make the statement that the Revisionist was ready to pay Rs.3 lacs to the complainant.
On the other hand, it was submitted by Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State/Respondent No.1 and Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No.2 that the order passed by Ld. Trial Court is correct and there is no illegality in the impugned orders. It was contended that statement made by the Counsel is binding upon the client. In this regard the reliance was placed upon (2008)4 Supreme Court Cases82.
The perusal of the order dated 1.7.2011 reveals that the interim bail was granted to the Revisionist till 16.7.2011 which was later on extended till 4.8.2011. On 4.8.2011 the interim bail was further extended till 20.8.2011. The perusal of impugned order dated 1.7.2011 further reveals that the counsel for the Revisionist submitted the Revisionist was willing to make the payment of Rs. 3 lacs to Respondent No.2. However, the Ld. Trial Court did not impose any condition in the order dated 1.7.2011 that Rs. 3 lacs were to be paid by the Revisionist to Respondent No.2. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 1.7.2011 is as under :
Arguments on the application for grant of bail heard. Accused has been in custody since 25.6.2011. Present being a Criminal Revision No. 52/2011 Page 5 /7 6 matrimonial dispute, no purpose would be served by detaining the accused in custody. The accused is admitted to interim bail upon furnishing Personal Bond and Surety Bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/ till 16.7.2011.
Sd/ ( Shuchi Laler) Mahila Court, MM,KKD, Delhi 01.07.11 Thus, from the perusal of the above order, it is clear that no such condition of payment of Rs.3 lacs by the Revisionist was imposed by the Ld. Trial Court.
The perusal of the said order further reveals that it was an order for grant of interim bail and the Ld. Trial Court was at liberty to extend or not to extend the said interim bail. Vide the impugned order dated 23.8.2011 the Ld.Trial Court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case did not think it proper to further extend the interim bail.
In view of the above discussion, I do not see any illegality or impropriety in the impugned orders and accordingly the same are upheld. The revision petition is dismissed.
However, it is made clear that the Revisionist is at liberty to approach the Ld. Trial Court for grant of bail.Criminal Revision No. 52/2011 Page 6 /7 7
The Trial Court record be sent back with copy of this order.
The Revision file be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Court on 12th October 2011 (Surinder Kumar Sharma) Additional Sessions Judge (North East) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision No. 52/2011 Page 7 /7