Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11. Before   this   supplementary   complaint   was   filed,   the appellant preferred second bail application in the present case before   the   High   Court   of   Delhi   at   New   Delhi,   being   Bail Application No.1361/2017.   This application was filed on 12 th July, 2017.  Along with the said bail application the appellant filed an application being Criminal M.A. No.1293 of 2017 for directing   his   interim   release   in   connection   with ECIR/DZ/II/2016   on   the   assertion   that   his   mother   was seriously ill and required immediate medical attention because of the injuries suffered by her on 20 th  June, 2017.   The said interim release application was allowed on 10 th  August, 2017. Notably,   the   appellant   was   advised   to   withdraw   the   regular (second)   Bail   Application   No.1361/2017.   The   learned   Single Judge   of   the   High   Court   by   order   dated   10 th  August,   2017 acceded   to   the   prayer   so   made   by   the   appellant.     The   order passed   by   the   learned Single  Judge  of  the  High  Court  reads thus: 

iii) Submission   of   charge­sheet   in   the   main   case   on 24/6/17;
iv) Illness of the mother of the Petitioner;
23
v) No definite reasons assigned by the Counsel for the Respondent   to   substantiate   allegation   that Petitioner   would   tamper   with   evidence   especially when   charge­sheet   in   the   main   case   has   been submitted.

16. The   argument   though   attractive   at   the   first   blush deserves   to   be   rejected.   In   our   opinion,   the   order   dated   10 th August,   2017   passed   by   the   High   Court   directing   interim release of the appellant was primarily on account of the illness of his mother. No more and no less. The other observations in the   said   order   will   have   no   bearing   on   the   merits   of   the controversy and required to be reckoned whilst considering the prayer for grant of regular bail.   For that, the appellant must succeed in overcoming the threshold of the rigors of Section 45 of the Act of 2002. Indubitably, the appellant having withdrawn the   regular   (second)   bail   application,   the   consideration   of prayer for grant of interim release could not have been taken forward. Besides, in the backdrop of the opinion recorded by the Co­ordinate Bench of the High Court (in its decision dated 5th  May, 2017) whilst considering the application for grant of regular bail, which was after filing of the initial complaint CC No.700/2017   (on   23rd  February,   2017),   was   binding   until reversed or a different view could be taken because of changed circumstances. Suffice it to observe that indulgence shown to the appellant in terms of order dated 10 th August, 2017 will be of no avail.  In that, the facts such as the appellant never tried to evade the investigation or that he has suffered incarceration for over 7½ months or that the charge­sheet has been filed in the predicate offence registered under FIR No.205/2016 or the factum   of   illness   of   the   mother   of   the   appellant   or   the observation that no definite reason has been assigned by the respondents for substantiating the allegation that the appellant would tamper with the evidence, may become relevant only if the threshold stipulation envisaged under Section 45 of the Act of 2002 was to be fulfilled. The said provision reads thus: