IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGEII (CENTRAL DISTRICT): TIS HAZARI COURTS:
Criminal Appeal No. 23/2019
Filing No. 2779/2019
Registration No. 327/2019
S/o Sh. Rajesh Kumar
R/o 527A, SST Nagar,Patiala, Punjab…….. Appellant
The State……. Respondent
Date of Institution: 15.05.2019
Judgment Reserved on: 23.05.2019
Judgment Pronounced on: 23.05.2019
(1) This rapist interest impugns a sequence antiquated 02.05.2019 upheld by a Ld. CMM, Delhi in Bail focus underneath Section 167 (2)(a)(ii) of Cr.P.C. filed by a appellant for extend of default bail in box FIR No.201/2018, PS EOW Delhi, underneath Sections 419/420/467/ 468/471 IPC.
(2) It is averred by a appellant that he had subscribed a loan comment form and also gave his photographs to a bank employees Gurvinder and Sukhdeep during a make change box orderly by ICICI Bank during Patiala. However, a appellant was sensitive by a pronounced bank employees that his loan focus has been deserted though a photographs of a appellant were dissipated and when he came to know that a military officials are acid for him, he had surrendered before a endangered Magistrate on 28.02.2019 and after military remand a appellant was sent to Judicial Custody. It is serve averred that no chargesheet was filed by a Investigating Agency within 60 days and a appellant became entitled to be expelled on bail as per a supplies of Section 167 (2)(a)(ii) of Cr.P.C. According to a appellant, he had changed a bail focus before a Ld. CMM for extend of default bail that focus was discharged by a Ld. CMCM vide sequence antiquated 02.05.2019.
(3) The brief belligerent on that a impugned sequence antiquated 02.05.2019 has been challenged is that a Ld. CMM has really severely erred in fixation his faith on a visualisation of Delhi High Court in a box of Ashwani Lochan Aggarwal vs. State that according to a Ld. Counsel for a appellant has been overruled. It is submitted that a Hon’ble Supreme Court has in a box of Achpal @ Ramswaroop & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan has really privately hold that a emanate relating to a control of a indicted ought to be dealt with by a Magistrate on a basement of a investigations. It is serve submitted that no record has been collected by a Investigating Officer compartment date to uncover a elect of corruption underneath Section 467 IPC by a appellant and a Ld. CMM has poorly discharged a bail focus saying that given a supplies of Section 467 IPC have been invoked, a charge piece can be filed within 90 days.
(4) Pursuant to a filing of a appeal, a notice was released to a Respondent/ state. Ld. Addl. PP for a State has submitted that he does not wish to record any respond to a interest and has argued that there is no blunder in a sequence of a Ld. CMM in as most as a supplies of Section 467 IPC has been invoked during a really pregnancy of a recording of FIR and according to a Investigating Officer a several officials of a bank have identified a accused/ appellant as a chairman who had submitted a comment opening forms.
(5) we have deliberate a opposition contentions and also perused a Trial Court Record. Without going into a merits and expressing any opinion during this theatre with courtesy to a justification collected so far, a brief belligerent on that we am prone to meddle is that according to a Ld. Counsel for a appellant he has placed his faith on a box of Achpal @ Ramswaroop vs The State of Rajasthan, reported in 2018 AIR SC 4647 though a Ld. CMM has unsuccessful to take a note of it. It is argued that a Hon’ble Supreme Court in a box of Achpal @ Ramswaroop vs The State of Rajasthan had privately celebrated that a theatre of review ought to be cramped to 90 or 60 days, as a box might be, and afterward a emanate relating to a control of a indicted ought to be dealt with by a Magistrate on a basement of a investigation, that observations are reproduced as under:
“……. The sustenance has a clear purpose in that; on a basement of a element relating to investigation, a Magistrate ought to be in a position to ensue with a matter. It is so clearly indicated that a theatre of review ought to be cramped to 90 or 60 days, as a box might be and afterward a emanate relating to a control of a indicted ought to be delat with by a Magistrate on a basement of a investigation. Matter and issues relating to autocracy and either a chairman indicted of a assign ought to be cramped or not, contingency be motionless by a Magistrate and not by a police…”
(6) It is also argued that a Ld. Trial Court has relied on a overruled visualisation in a box of Ashwani Lochan Aggarwal vs. State. However, we might observe that a evidence of a Ld. Counsel for a appellant on a aspect that a visualisation of Delhi High Court in a box of Ashwani Lochan Aggarwal vs. State has been overruled, Ld. Counsel for a appellant has unsuccessful to forked out a specific overruling of a same. However, be that as a box might be, a latest visualisation of a Hon’ble Supreme Court in a box of Achpal @ Ramswaroop & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan (Supra) is positively compulsory to be looked into. we hereby set aside a impugned sequence antiquated 02.05.2019 and remand a box behind to a Ld. CMM so as to capacitate him to take a note of a observations of a Hon’ble Supreme Court in a box of Achpal @ Ramswaroop & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan (Supra). However, it shall be open to a Ld. CMM to demeanour into a observations of a several High Courts in a box of State vs Hargyan in Crl. Rev. Petition No. 770/2015 & Crl. M.A. No.17403/2015, Crl. M.A. No.17404/2015, motionless on 13.06.2016; Sharadchandra Vinayak Dongre V. State Of Maharashtra reported in 1991 CriLJ 3329 and Sri Sukhrai Debbarma vs Superintendent of Central Bureau, in Bail Application No. 101/2018 motionless on 21.12.2018.
(7) Appeal is accordingly Allowed. Trial Court Record be sent behind along with a duplicate of this Judgment. Parties are destined to seem before a Ld. CMM on 27.05.2019 during 2:00 PM.
(8) Appeal record be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in a open Court
(Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Addl. Sessions JudgeII, (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi