* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on : December 07, 2015 + BAIL APPLN. 1483/2015 SACHIN SHARMA Petitioner Through: Mr. [ENTITY], Mr. [ENTITY], Mr. [ENTITY], Mr.[ENTITY], Advocates versus STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI Respondent Through: Mr. [ENTITY], Additional Public Prosecutor for the State with Sub-Inspector [ENTITY], Special Cell, SR CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE [ENTITY] JUDGMENT
[ENTITY], J.
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 16.03.2015, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge -01, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, vide which the bail application filed by the present petitioner has been rejected, the petitioner has filed the present bail application under [SECTION] read with [SECTION] of the [ACT] seeking bail in FIR No.71/2009 under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] of [ACT] read with [SECTION] of the [ACT] and under [SECTION] of the [ACT], Police Station Special Cell, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
2. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is that he, alongwith other accused, has been running an organized crime syndicate and is involved in as many as 22 criminal cases including that of cheating, forgery, criminal breach of trust, attempt to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, wrongful confinement and criminal intimidation etc., registered at various police stations in Delhi, Haryana and Punjab. It is also alleged that the petitioner and his associates earned a lot of assets in Delhi and NCR, out of the money derived from illegal activities. The basic allegation against the petitioner is that he alongwith organized crime syndicate headed by accused [ENTITY] had been providing fake Visas and forged passports to the various victims and making money and had also been indulging in criminal intimidation of the victim.
3. Mr. [ENTITY], counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was arrested in the year May, 2010 under the stringent provisions of [ACT] (hereinafter referred to as [ACT]) and till date incarcerated and awaiting trial. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to the order dated 27.08.2014 passed by this Court in [CASE NUMBER] wherein the petitioner was allowed to withdraw the bail application with liberty to file a fresh bail application before the Trial Court after the charges under [ACT] are framed and in compliance thereof, the petitioner moved regular bail application before the concerned Court which was kept in abeyance till the framing of charges. It is further contended that the bail application was finally heard by Trial Court and the orders were reserved and the same was passed after more than half a year had elapsed. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody for more than five years and there is no question of his being a proclaimed offender in other cases when he is already in jail. Apart from discussing the various stages of the trial of a case, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that one of the co-accused is already enlarged on bail and parity under [SECTION] of the [ACT] is claimed. The counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that even if the applicant is ultimately convicted by the Trial Court, which though is quiet far-fetched due to lack of material on record and the evidence for conviction vis-a-vis mechanical application of the statute, then also the period for which the petitioner could be sentenced, he would have already undergone as an under-trial prisoner by then. Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in "[PRECEDENT]", to contend that "when there is a delay in trial, bail should be granted to the accused." To support his contentions regarding the petitioner enlarging on bail, counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following judgments:
a) [PRECEDENT];
b) [PRECEDENT];
c) [PRECEDENT];
d) [PRECEDENT];
e) [PRECEDENT];
f) [PRECEDENT] decided on 05.09.2014, decided by the Supreme Court);
g) [PRECEDENT] decided by Delhi High Court on 03.12.2009).
4. To oppose the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. [ENTITY], learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the aforesaid contentions raised by counsel for the petitioner. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that the petitioner has been individually and jointly with other accused persons committed violation and criminal intimidation of the victims besides committing cheating, forgery etc. to the tune of about Rs.4.5 crores and fourteen fake accounts of the accused persons are also attached, therefore the petitioner be not granted concession of bail in the present case.
5. The submissions of counsel for the petitioner and the counter submissions on behalf of the State have been heard and the material placed on record has been perused.
6. After careful scrutiny of the case in hand, this Court observes that there is recovery of a black colour polythene bag from the cursory search of the petitioner and it was found to contain Indian currency notes worth Rs.7,94,200/-; the petitioner is also found to be involved in six other cases; and the petitioner alongwith organized crime syndicate has been providing fake visas and forged passports to the various victims and making money and had also been indulging in criminal intimidation of the victims.
7. I have also perused the judgments cited on behalf of the petitioner on the point of granting bail and this Court is of the considered opinion that the bail may be granted to an accused in a case while taking note of the period during which the accused remained in custody but simultaneously, the magnitude of the alleged crime and the consequences thereof are required be kept in mind.
8. This Court also observes that the petitioner is involved in running an organized crime syndicate and is involved in as many as 22 criminal cases including that of cheating, forgery, criminal breach of trust, attempt to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, wrongful confinement and criminal intimidation etc, registered at various police stations in Delhi, Haryana and Punjab and merely because the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last about 5 years, does not entitle him to bail, as in criminal jurisprudence, there cannot be any straightjacket formula regarding grant of bail and every case is required to be considered on its own facts.
9. As far as the contention raised by counsel for the petitioner regarding delay in conclusion of the trial, this Court also observes from the impugned order that there are more than forty five witnesses who have been dropped due to documents being admitted and the other witnesses are also largely witnesses on documents, therefore the time bound directions for conclusion of the trial can be passed. Accordingly, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of the case on day to day basis and conclude the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the next date fixed before the Trial Court.
10. In view of the aforesaid observations, facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is not inclined to grant the concession of bail to the petitioner in this case, at this stage. Accordingly, the present application filed by the petitioner - [ENTITY] is dismissed at this stage. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to file a fresh application for bail, in case the trial is not concluded in the next six months.
11. It is made clear that the expression of any opinion hereinbefore may not be treated as an expression on the merits of the case.
12. With aforesaid observations, the present bail application filed by the petitioner is dismissed.
([ENTITY]) JUDGE DECEMBER 07, 2015 pkb