Sukhjinder Singh Vs. State (N.C.T.) of Delhi
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 1073 of 2001
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1191/2001)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 10.10.2000 of the Delhi High Court in Crl. Misc (Main) No. 3296 of 1999)
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1191/2001)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 10.10.2000 of the Delhi High Court in Crl. Misc (Main) No. 3296 of 1999)
Petitioner: Sukhjinder Singh
Respondent: State (N.C.T.) of Delhi
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 1073 of 2001
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1191/2001)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 10.10.2000 of the Delhi High Court in Crl. Misc (Main) No. 3296 of 1999)
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1191/2001)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 10.10.2000 of the Delhi High Court in Crl. Misc (Main) No. 3296 of 1999)
Judges: D.P. MOHAPATRA & SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Oct 18, 2001
Appearances:
Mr. Rajeev Dutta, Senior Advocate, Mr. Somesh Arora, Mr. U.K. Jha, Mr. Aslam Ahmed, Mr. Shaikh Imran Alam and Mr. Ejaz Maqbool, Advocates with him for the Appellant.
Mr. Ashok Bhan, Ms. Sunita Sharma and Mr. D.S. Mahra, Advocates for the Respondent.
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAWS
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
a) Section 167(2) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 201, 34 and 120B – Statutory bail – When a person is entitled to be released under section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. – Person arrested on charges of murder and criminal conspiracy – Since no charge sheet was filed within ninety days, person filing a petition for statu-tory bail – Petition however rejected by the magistrate and additional sessions judge – High Court also finding no merit in the case and rejecting the bail application – Charge sheet filed in the meantime. Held, court not inclined to order the release of the appellant on bail in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. Appellant however entitled to move an application for regular bail.
Held:
The petition filed for release of the appellant on bail under section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code was rejected by the learned magistrate and the learned additional sessions judge at New Delhi. The High Court was also not satisfied that there was any merit in the application. In the meantime, charge-sheet has been filed in F.I.R. case no. 479/99 and the case has been com-mitted to the court of sessions. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to order release of the appellant on bail in exer-cise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. It is open to the appellant to file an application for regular bail stating all the facts and urging all available grounds. If such an application is filed, the same will be disposed of by the court expeditiously in accordance with law. (Para 5)
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
Shivaraj V. Patil, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. The appellant was arrested along with two other co-accused persons by the police of Police Station, Sadar Karnal, on 7.5.1999 at the check-post in front of police post, Ramba (Karn-al), alleging that when a maruti car was checked, a dead body was in the back seat. The appellant was brought to police station and first information report no. 231/99 under sections 302, 201, 34 and 120-B IPC was registered. The investigating officer produced the appellant along with other two co-accused persons in the court of ACJM, Karnal and requested for police remand, which was granted for five days on 8.5.1999. The appellant was brought to Delhi along with the co-accused on 12.5.1999. It is alleged that they pointed out the place of incident – House No. D-846, New Friends Colony, New Delhi; the investigating officer of police station, Sadar Karnal, approached Delhi Police with the letter of superintendent of police for registering another FIR as the murder and criminal conspiracy are alleged to have occurred within the jurisdiction of Police Station, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. Accordingly FIR No. 479/99 was registered in Police Station, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. Since 90 days were over and charge sheet had not been filed, a petition was filed under section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. in the court of ACJM, Karnal, for releasing on bail. He was ordered to be released on bail on 6.8.1999. On 7.8.1999, instead of releasing the appellant and other co-accused from Karnal jail, they were handed over to Delhi police. The appellant was produced before the learned magis-trate, New Delhi. He was remanded along with other two co-ac-cused persons to judicial custody in Tihar Jail. A petition filed for grant of bail under section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. by the appellant was rejected by the learned magistrate, New Delhi on 1.9.1999. Further, the bail application filed by the appell-ant in the court of addl. sessions judge, New Delhi, under sec-tion 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. was also rejected. Thereafter, the appellant filed criminal misc. (main) no. 3296/99 under section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail before the High Court. The same also was dismissed. Hence, this appeal.
4. The learned senior counsel for the appellant urged that two F.I.Rs. cannot be registered in respect of the same offences, one at Karnal and another at New Delhi; when the appellant was grant-ed statutory bail under section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. by the learned ACJM, Karnal and when he was about to be released, pur-posely one more F.I.R. was registered at New Delhi to deprive him of bail granted by ACJM, Karnal; he was handed over to Delhi police. According to the learned counsel, both the courts at Karnal and New Delhi cannot continue the proceedings parallel in respect of the same offences. He further submitted that from the date of first arrest, 90 days having expired and the charge-sheet having not been filed, application filed by the appellant under section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. should have been allowed by the High Court. In opposition, the learned counsel for the state (NCT) of Delhi made submissions supporting the impugned order. According to him, 90 days period not having expired from the date of arrest by Delhi police, the appellant was not entitled for statutory bail under section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. He also added that the proceedings are going on only in New Delhi court and not in the court at Karnal.
5. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. The petition filed for release of the appellant on bail under section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code was rejected by the learned magistrate and the learned additional sessions judge at New Delhi. The High Court was also not satis-fied that there was any merit in the application. In the mean-time, charge-sheet has been filed in F.I.R. case no. 479/99 and the case has been committed to the court of sessions. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to order release of the ap-pellant on bail in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. It is open to the appellant to file an application for regular bail stating all the facts and urging all available grounds. If such an application is filed, the same will be disposed of by the court expeditiously in accor-dance with law.
6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, we are of the view that the criminal case instituted in the court of the ACJM, Karnal should not continue since the case relating to the same incident is pending in the sessions court at Delhi and the same will continue in accordance with law. Therefore, the learned ACJM, Karnal shall pass order dropping the criminal case arising from the F.I.R. No. 231/99 under sections 302, 201, 34 and 120-B IPC in the Police Station, Sadar, Karnal within two weeks of receipt of copy of this order.
7. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Shivaraj V. Patil, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. The appellant was arrested along with two other co-accused persons by the police of Police Station, Sadar Karnal, on 7.5.1999 at the check-post in front of police post, Ramba (Karn-al), alleging that when a maruti car was checked, a dead body was in the back seat. The appellant was brought to police station and first information report no. 231/99 under sections 302, 201, 34 and 120-B IPC was registered. The investigating officer produced the appellant along with other two co-accused persons in the court of ACJM, Karnal and requested for police remand, which was granted for five days on 8.5.1999. The appellant was brought to Delhi along with the co-accused on 12.5.1999. It is alleged that they pointed out the place of incident – House No. D-846, New Friends Colony, New Delhi; the investigating officer of police station, Sadar Karnal, approached Delhi Police with the letter of superintendent of police for registering another FIR as the murder and criminal conspiracy are alleged to have occurred within the jurisdiction of Police Station, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. Accordingly FIR No. 479/99 was registered in Police Station, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. Since 90 days were over and charge sheet had not been filed, a petition was filed under section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. in the court of ACJM, Karnal, for releasing on bail. He was ordered to be released on bail on 6.8.1999. On 7.8.1999, instead of releasing the appellant and other co-accused from Karnal jail, they were handed over to Delhi police. The appellant was produced before the learned magis-trate, New Delhi. He was remanded along with other two co-ac-cused persons to judicial custody in Tihar Jail. A petition filed for grant of bail under section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. by the appellant was rejected by the learned magistrate, New Delhi on 1.9.1999. Further, the bail application filed by the appell-ant in the court of addl. sessions judge, New Delhi, under sec-tion 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. was also rejected. Thereafter, the appellant filed criminal misc. (main) no. 3296/99 under section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail before the High Court. The same also was dismissed. Hence, this appeal.
4. The learned senior counsel for the appellant urged that two F.I.Rs. cannot be registered in respect of the same offences, one at Karnal and another at New Delhi; when the appellant was grant-ed statutory bail under section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. by the learned ACJM, Karnal and when he was about to be released, pur-posely one more F.I.R. was registered at New Delhi to deprive him of bail granted by ACJM, Karnal; he was handed over to Delhi police. According to the learned counsel, both the courts at Karnal and New Delhi cannot continue the proceedings parallel in respect of the same offences. He further submitted that from the date of first arrest, 90 days having expired and the charge-sheet having not been filed, application filed by the appellant under section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. should have been allowed by the High Court. In opposition, the learned counsel for the state (NCT) of Delhi made submissions supporting the impugned order. According to him, 90 days period not having expired from the date of arrest by Delhi police, the appellant was not entitled for statutory bail under section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. He also added that the proceedings are going on only in New Delhi court and not in the court at Karnal.
5. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. The petition filed for release of the appellant on bail under section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code was rejected by the learned magistrate and the learned additional sessions judge at New Delhi. The High Court was also not satis-fied that there was any merit in the application. In the mean-time, charge-sheet has been filed in F.I.R. case no. 479/99 and the case has been committed to the court of sessions. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to order release of the ap-pellant on bail in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. It is open to the appellant to file an application for regular bail stating all the facts and urging all available grounds. If such an application is filed, the same will be disposed of by the court expeditiously in accor-dance with law.
6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, we are of the view that the criminal case instituted in the court of the ACJM, Karnal should not continue since the case relating to the same incident is pending in the sessions court at Delhi and the same will continue in accordance with law. Therefore, the learned ACJM, Karnal shall pass order dropping the criminal case arising from the F.I.R. No. 231/99 under sections 302, 201, 34 and 120-B IPC in the Police Station, Sadar, Karnal within two weeks of receipt of copy of this order.
7. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
