Grant Of Statutory Bail Cannot Be Considered As Interlocutory Order; It Is A Final Order Releasing Accused: Delhi HC
|The Delhi High Court remarked that grant of statutory bail cannot be considered as interlocutory order and it is a final order releasing accused.
The Court was dealing with a petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), challenging the order of the Principal District and Sessions Judge by which the revision petition of the State was allowed and the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, granting statutory bail under Section 167(2) of CrPC was set aside.
A Single Bench of Justice Navin Chawla observed, “As far as the maintainability of the Revision Petition is concerned, the grant of Statutory Bail cannot be considered as an Interlocutory Order. It is a final order releasing the Applicant on Bail as the investigation could not be completed and the final report could not be filed within the period of 60/90 days by the prosecution. The learned PD&SJ has also rejected the said argument by placing reliance on the judgment of the High Court of Jharkhand in Ratan Mandai v. State of Jharkhand 2005 SCC OnLine Jhar 460, and on the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Raja Bhaiya Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2021 SCC OnLine MP 27.”
Advocate Abhishek Paruthi appeared for the petitioner while APP Shoaib Haider appeared for the respondent.
Facts of the Case -
An FIR was registered under Sections 420, 468, 471, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on the complaint made by the complainant who alleged that in September 2018, he approached a man who was his neighbour and ran business of property dealing in South Delhi. The said man introduced him to a person as a leading property dealer/broker who mentioned about a property.
A power of attorney was executed in favour of the petitioner for the purpose of selling the said property. The complainant on believing the representations, agreed to purchase the same for a total sale consideration of Rs. 5,25,000/- by entering into an Agreement to Sell. The petitioner was arrested in 2022 in relation to the FIR and he filed an application claiming Statutory Bail, by contending that the 60 days’ period had expired and the investigation had not been completed.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances noted, “The plea of the petitioner that a Section/Offence cannot be invoked on mere suspicion and without having any material, in my opinion, cannot be disputed, however, at the stage of considering an application seeking Statutory Bail under Section 167 of the Cr.P.C., the Court has to give fair opportunity to the prosecution to collect evidence in support of its claim that a particular offence may be made out against the accused. The threshold for determining the prima facie case against the accused is, therefore, even more liberally to be applied against the accused while considering the claim of the accused to a Statutory or Default Bail.”
The Court further noted that the accused always has a right to apply for bail under Section 437 of the Cr.P.C., however, what the accused claims under Proviso (a) to Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. is that irrespective of the material and allegation against the accused, the accused be released on bail if the Final Report has not been filed within the period prescribed therein.
“I am also not in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the first Charge Sheet that was filed before the learned Trial Court on 11.06.2022 was incomplete as it did not accompany the report from the Embassy of India in Canada or the statement of the witnesses pointing out that the alleged Power of Attorney was forged. Merely because some of the documents are not filed with the First/Initial Charge Sheet, as the investigation is still going on, would not vitiate the said Charge Sheet and, therefore, would not entitle the accused to a grant of Statutory Bail”, it also said.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition and directed the petitioner to surrender.
Cause Title- Amarjeet Singh Dhillon v. State of NCT of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:4606)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Abhishek Paruthi, Harshit Thareja, and Vijaya Rathi.
Respondent: APP Shoaib Haider, Advocates Richa Kapoor, Kunal Anand, Deepak Singh, Jai Batra, Atika Singh, and Kriti Gera.