IN THE COURT OF SH. [ENTITY], ASJ-02/FTC NEW DELHI DISTRICT PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, DELHI Bail No. 2991/14 State vs. [ENTITY] FIR No. 69/07 PS : Special Cell u/[SECTION] IPC ORDER
Present: None By this order, I shall decide the application of the accused [ENTITY] under [SECTION] of the [ACT] for grant of anticipatory bail. Arguments on the application have been addressed by the counsel for the applicant as well as of the State. I have perused the record.
The applicant has submitted that he is a noted and well known social worker who has been working in the field of Rural Reconstruction for the past two decades. He has submitted that he provides free education and health facilities to more than 3,000 children and is also convenor of Nagrik Morcha, a civil body fighting for citizen rights and amenities in Bhagalpur, Bihar. It is stated that the present FIR has been registered on 08.10.07 on a complaint of [ENTITY] alleging that he had received a threat through a telephonic call from [ENTITY] and [ENTITY], the other accused, to deposit Rs. 50 lacs with the applicant and Rs.25 lacs with [ENTITY]. He was also asked to file an affidavit in the murder case of one [ENTITY] and to shut down his coal business. It is stated that it was alleged in the complaint that the present State vs. [ENTITY] applicant and [ENTITY] are involved in investment of proceeds of crime of [ENTITY] and [ENTITY].
It is further stated that charge-sheet has been filed against [ENTITY] on 21.03.2008 and application was filed in the Trial Court for issuance of non-bailable warrants against the applicant which was rejected on 07.07.2010 but the said order was set aside in revision by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge on 12.10.2010 on an application of the State. It is stated that proceedings under [SECTION] and [SECTION] of [ACT] ([ACT]) were initiated against the applicant but he came to know about the same only in January, 2012. It is stated that the applicant inspected the records of the Trial Court and then filed [CASE NUMBER] before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi challenging the orders dated 12.10.2010 of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge. The said petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court on 21.03.2012. An application seeking modification of the order dated 21.03.2012 was also dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court on 27.03.2012. It is stated that the applicant thereafter filed [CASE NUMBER] before the Hon'ble Supreme Court with an application to place on record new facts revealed to the applicant under the provisions of the [ACT] but the said SLP was dismissed as withdrawn by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 13.03.2013.
It is further stated by the applicant that police officials have manipulated records pertaining to execution of non-bailable warrants against the applicant and mislead the Ld. Trial Court into State vs. [ENTITY] taking coercive steps against him. It is stated that the process and orders passed by the Ld. Trial Court under [SECTION] and [SECTION] [ACT] were obtained by fraud by the police officials. It is further submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this matter.
During course of arguments, the Ld. Counsel for the applicant submitted that no police official ever visited the premises of the applicant at Bhagalpur, Bihar and relied on certain information obtained under the [ACT] from the office of the Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur. Counsel submitted that a fraud was played upon the Trial Court which upon believing the contentions of the police officials issued process under [SECTION] of the [ACT] against him. Reliance was placed by the Ld. Counsel for the applicant on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT], [CASE NUMBER] decided on 07.03.2007.
On the other hand, Ld.Addl. PP has drawn the attention of this Court to the orders dated 21.03.2012 and 27.03.2012 of the Hon'ble High Court passed in [CASE NUMBER] and submitted that once there is an order of the Hon'ble High Court to arrest the applicant, his application for grant of anticipatory bail could not be considered. He further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of [PRECEDENT] and of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Deepa Devi State vs. [ENTITY] and Ors. vs. State of NCT of Delhi in [CASE NUMBER] decided on 14.12.2009 and submitted that a person who is absconding and has been declared a Proclaimed Offender is not entitled to anticipatory bail.
Ld. Counsel for the applicant in rejoinder argued that both the judgments relied upon by the Ld. Addl. PP do provide that in exceptional circumstances, even a person who has been declared a Proclaimed Offender is entitled to anticipatory bail.
The applicant has placed on record copies of orders dated 21.03.2012 and 27.03.2012 of the Hon'ble High Court passed in [CASE NUMBER]. By the first order the Hon'ble High Court disposed off the challenge of the applicant against the order dated 12.10.2010 of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge. The relevant portion of the said order is as under:-
"17. Against the petitioner cognizable case has been registered. The Investigating Officer has tried his level best to arrest him however, till date the petitioner has managed to abscond. If I set aside the impugned order, the position will remain the same. And vide the instant petition the petitioner is not seeking quashing of FIR registered against him.
18. Other legal issue raised by ld. Counsel for the petitioner is that against the interlocutory order Revision was not maintainable.
19. Without going on the issues raised, in the facts and circumstances of this case, since the petitioner has approached this Court, therefore, the proper way for him would be either he surrender before the Investigating Officer or before the Trial Court, since the case has been registered against State vs. [ENTITY] him and pending for investigation.
20. At this stage, ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner sought two weeks time to do the needful.
21. Accordingly, request of ld. Counsel accepted. Therefore, the petitioner is directed to surrender either before Investigating Officer or before ld. Trial Court within 2 weeks time as prayed, so that the pending investigation may be completed.
22. I here make it clear that if the petitioner does not comply the directions issued by this court, in that eventuality, the ld. Trial Court shall take steps as directed by ld. Revisional Court.
23. [CASE NUMBER] is disposed of on the above terms.
24. Since the main petition is disposed of [CASE NUMBER] (Stay) become infructuous and disposed of as such.
25. [ENTITY]."
Perusal of the order dated 21.03.2012 reveals that the Hon'ble High Court has observed that the applicant cannot be permitted to evade investigation and directed that the proper way for the applicant was to surrender either before the IO or the Trial Court. It appears that in the midst of the proceedings on 21.03.2012, Counsel for the applicant had submitted to the Hon'ble High Court that he may be granted two weeks for this purpose and the Hon'ble High Court accepted the said request and directed the applicant to surrender either before the IO or the Trial Court within two weeks. The Hon'ble High Court made it clear that in case the applicant failed to comply with the said directions, the Trial Court was to take steps as per the directions of the Revisional Court.
State vs. [ENTITY] Instead of complying with the directions of the Hon'ble High Court, the applicant moved an application [CASE NUMBER] in [CASE NUMBER] before the Hon'ble High Court seeking recall/clarification/modification/correction of the order dated 21.03.2012. The said application came to be dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court on 27.03.2012. Since the said order is material, it is being reproduced in its entirety as under:-
"O R D E R 27.03.2012
1. Vide the instant application; the petitioner has sought recall/clarification/modification/ correction of the clerical mistake in the order passed on 21.03.2012 passed by this Court.
2. Ld. Sr. Counsel submits that a clerical mistake occurred in the said order. Paras 20 and 21 of the order dated 21.03.2012 is reproduced as under:-
"20. At this stage, Ld. counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner sought two weeks to do the needful.
21. Accordingly, request of ld. Counsel accepted. Therefore, the petitioner is directed to surrender either before Investigating Officer or before ld. Trial Court within 2 weeks time as prayed, so that the pending investigation may be completed."
State vs. [ENTITY]
3. Ld. Sr. counsel further submits that he did not seek such concession rather it was contention of ld. APP and it has been wrongly recorded as the contention of Ld. Sr. counsel for petitioner.
4. This court specifically asked Mr. [ENTITY], Sr. Adv.; who is a respectable member of Bar and Officer of the Court, as under:-
Question: If the paras mentioned above is even deleted from the judgment what would be the affect of the same as far as the petitioner is concerned:
5. Learned Sr. counsel submits that as recorded by this court, the petitioner is bound to surrender and to comply with the directions passed by this court vide order dated 21.03.2012.
6. The FIR in the instant case was registered against the petitioner way back in 2007, till date, the petitioner has managed to abscond.
Proceedings under [SECTION] [ACT] have already been initiated against the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances, the petitioner cannot be allowed to remain absconding and to douse police and legal system of the country. therefore, the instant application is disposed of with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid in favour of Delhi Legal Aid Service Committee within a week from today. The proof of the same shall be placed on record.
7. I further make it clear that IO of the case is directed to take steps to arrest the petitioner immediately as per Law and two weeks time granted to the petitioner immediately as per Law and two weeks time granted to the petitioner vide order dated 21.03.2012 is hereby withdrawn.
8. Application disposed of on above terms.
State vs. [ENTITY]
9. No further order is required.
10. [ENTITY] under the signatures of Court Master.
[ENTITY], J MARCH 27,2012"
The orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court on 27.03.2012 are clear and unambiguous. The Hon'ble High Court in clear terms has observed that despite the FIR having been registered in 2007 the applicant has managed to abscond and proceedings under [SECTION] and [SECTION] [ACT] have already been initiated against him. The Hon'ble High Court observed that the applicant could not be permitted to remain absconding and to dodge the police and legal system of the nation. The Hon'ble High Court not only dismissed the said application with costs of Rs.25,000/- but also passed a positive direction to the IO of the case to take steps to arrest the applicant immediately as per law.
Admittedly, against the said orders of the Hon'ble High Court, the applicant approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court which resulted in failure. The applicant in para no.6 of his bail application has also submitted that the new facts which had come to his knowledge on the basis of applications filed under the [ACT] were sought to be brought on record before the Hon'ble Supreme Court but the same was declined.
Circumstances as on date are that there is a direction of the Hon'ble High Court to the Ld. Trial Court to take steps in terms of the order of the Revisional Court and also to the IO of the case to arrest the applicant.
State vs. [ENTITY] In the case of [PRECEDENT] (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that power under [SECTION] of the [ACT] was extraordinary and is to be exercised only in exceptional cases where it appears that the person may be falsely implicated or where there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person-accused of an offence is not likely to otherwise misuse his liberty. It was further held that any person who has been declared as an absconder/proclaimed offender in terms of [SECTION] of [ACT] is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail. The same has also been held by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of [PRECEDENT] (Supra).
The applicant has already been declared a proclaimed offender by order dated 10.10.2013 by the Ld. Trial Court and is absconding. There are positive orders in operation of the Hon'ble High Court to the Ld. Trial Court to comply with the orders of the Revisional Court and also to the IO of the case to arrest the applicant. In these facts and circumstances, the applicant is not entitled to be considered for grant of anticipatory bail under [SECTION] of [ACT] Application stands dismissed. The interim order passed by the Ld. Predecessor on 25.07.2014 and continued till today is vacated.
Announced in the open court ([ENTITY]) on 12th August, 2014 ASJ-02/FTC, PHC/NDD 12.08.2014 State vs. [ENTITY]