MyNation KnowledgeBase

Landmark Judgments and Articles on Law

Register to Download

Whether a Accused ought to be Confined or not, contingency be motionless by a Magistrate and not by a Police

IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE­II (CENTRAL DISTRICT): TIS HAZARI COURTS:
DELHI

Criminal Appeal No. 23/2019
Filing No. 2779/2019
Registration No. 327/2019

Manoj Kumar
S/o Sh. Rajesh Kumar
R/o 527­A, SST Nagar,Patiala, Punjab…….. Appellant

Versus

The State……. Respondent

Date of Institution: 15.05.2019
Judgment Reserved on: 23.05.2019
Judgment Pronounced on: 23.05.2019

JUDGMENT:
(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.

READ  Distant relatives 498A quashed with Section 482 Cr.P.C

(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.

READ  Whether husband can be prosecuted under S 304B and S 498A of IPC even if he is not legally married with prosecutrix?

(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
Dated: 23.05.2019

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 MyNation KnowledgeBase
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, though No Lawyer will give we Advice like We do

Please review Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You determine afterwards Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We hoop Women Centric inequitable laws like False Section 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

READ  Distant relatives 498A quashed with Section 482 Cr.P.C
MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation