Delhi High Court - Orders
Surender Kumar vs Central Bureau Of Narcotics (Cbn) on 21 September, 2023
$~82
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 1212/2023
SURENDER KUMAR ..... Applicant
Through: None.
versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF NARCOTICS (CBN)
..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
ORDER
% 21.09.2023
1. This matter is taken up on an Office note.
2. BAIL APPLN. 1212/2023 was listed on 22.08.2023 for final arguments and upon conclusion of which judgement was to be delivered later. However, on 29.08.2023, the learned counsel for the applicant, by way of special mentioning, has inadvertently handed over a judgment dated 29.08.2023 of a Coordinate bench of this Court in BAIL APPLN. 2881/2022 titled Suraj vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, which due to inadvertence was taken into consideration by this Court also. However, the same could not be taken into consideration, being later in point of time, as to the date of the judgement in the present case i.e. 22.08.2023.
3. Accordingly, paragraphs 13 and 24 of the judgment dated 22.08.2023, are modified and be read as under:
"13. The learned counsel also submits that the applicant was BAIL APPLN. 1212/2023 Page 1 of 2 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/09/2023 at 22:13:13 arrested on 16.10.2019 and has been languishing in the judicial custody for almost 2 years and 4 months. In support of the argument, the learned counsel places reliance upon a recent judgement delivered by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.08.2023 in BAIL APPLN. 3649/2022 titled Priyaranjan Sharma vs. State of NCT Delhi wherein as the applicant had served a period of 3 years and 7 months in judicial custody, he was released on bail.
24. Be that as it may, in the opinion of this Court, the applicant also cannot claim parity with the accused person in Priyaranjan (supra) as the situation involved therein was far from what is involved herein. In any event, reliance placed by the learned counsel for the applicant on the aforesaid case is misplaced, as the period undergone in the present case is far less than what was involved therein and bail granted to the accused therein was under the facts of that case. Even otherwise, it is trite that parity is not the sole ground for granting bail to an accused like the applicant herein, more so, whence there is a huge difference between the quantum of contraband recovered/ involved in the present case."
4. The learned counsel for the applicant to be cautious in future.
5. Accordingly, the Office note is discharged.
SAURABH BANERJEE, J SEPTEMBER 21, 2023 AK BAIL APPLN. 1212/2023 Page 2 of 2 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/09/2023 at 22:13:13