A convict who fulfills the requirements of HPC guidelines, can be granted interim bail: High Court of Delhi.

 $~2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 09th JULY 2021 IN THE MATTER OF: BAIL APPLN. 2094 2021 MUDASSIR HABIB Petitioner Through Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Advocate STATE OF NCT OF DELHI Through Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya APP Respondent Mr. Sourabh Shaoukeen Advocate for the complainant. HON BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD J.(ORAL) This petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C is for grant of interim bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 02 2021 dated 02.01.2021 registered at Police Station Crime Branch for offences under Section 420 468 471 506 120B and 34 IPC on the ground of HPC guidelines. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is in custody since 03.03.2021 and is squarely covered under clause II of the HPC guidelines dated 04.05.2021. Notice has been issued on 18.06.2021. Status Report has been filed. 4. Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya learned APP for the State states that the HPC guidelines dated 04.05.2021 would not be applicable to the petitioner because BAIL APPLN. 2094 2021 he is involved in one more case. She further states that cases investigated by the Crime Branch are excluded from the operation of the HPC guidelines. The learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the HPC guidelines dated 11.05.2021 the relevant portion reads as under: If the Under Trial Prisoner falling in one of the Eleven criteria laid down by this Committee in the Minutes of Meeting dated 4th May 2021 and or in any of the Two criteria laid down today hereinabove has three or more criminal cases pending against him then his case shall not be considered for grant of interim bail." The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the said resolution squarely covers the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that a similar exclusion clause had been made in the earlier HPC guidelines also and when identical objections were raised this Court by an order dated 13.08.2020 had rejected those objections and had granted the benefit of HPC guidelines to the petitioner in Mohsin Khan v. State of NCT of Delhi MANU DE 1547 2020. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on para 11 and 12 of the said order which reads as under: “11. In my view the applicant cannot be denied interim bail on the ground of exception in the High Powered Committee recommendations dated 18th May 2020 or as revisited on 20th June 2020. The category of cases excepted at Serial No. are “cases investigated by CBI ED NIA Special Cell of Delhi Police Crime Branch SFIO Terror related Cases Riot cases cases under and Unlawful BAIL APPLN. 2094 2021 company Prevention) Act etc.” I am in agreement with Mr. Lal Singh Thakur learned Counsel for the applicant that the expression “riot cases” as employed is to be read ejusdem generis with the other categories of cases with which it CBI ED NIA Special Cell of Delhi Police investigated by the Crime Branch cases investigated by the SFIO Terror related Cases Riot cases and cases under Anti National Activities and Unlawful Activities Prevention) Act. The use of the concluding “et cetera” supports this view as it clearly indicates that the categories of cases envisaged as falling under the said head constitute a broad genus. It is obvious that the intention of the High Powered Committee was essentially to except from the facility of interim bail cases where there was large scale rioting as would render them analogous to the other categories of cases visualised in category supra and would not apply to the cases where a group of six to seven persons came together in a common act of assault consequent on a sudden altercation resulting in the death of the person assaulted. Such a case cannot be treated in my view as a “riot case” as envisaged by categoryof the excepted categories of cases in the recommendations of the High Powered Committee though Section 147 may have been invoked against the accused. 12. Apart from my judgment in Behruddin a Coordinate Bench of this Court has also granted interim bail to an accused against whom Section 147 of the IPC inter alia was invoked in order dated 27th May 2020 in Bail Application 275 2020The petitioner therefore fulfils the requirements of the HPC guidelines BAIL APPLN. 2094 2021 dated 04.05.2021 and 11.05.2021 and is granted interim bail for 90 days from the date of his release on the following conditions: a) The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25 000 with one surety of the like amount who should be a relative of the petitioner to the satisfaction of Jail Superintendent Duty Magistrate. b) The petitioner shall report to the concerned Police Station on every Monday Wednesday and Saturday. c) The petitioner is directed to give all his mobile numbers to the Investigating Officer and keep them operational at all times. d) The petitioner is directed to provide his address to the IO and if he changes the address he shall intimate the same to the IO. e) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly tamper with evidence or try to influence the witnesses. The petitioner is directed to surrender on the expiry of the interim bail before the concerned Jail Superintendent. g) Violation of any of these conditions will result in the cancellation of the bail given to the petitioner and will also have a bearing on the future bail applications of the petitioner. The petition is disposed of in the abovementioned terms. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned Jail SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD J Superintendent. JULY 09 2021 Rahul BAIL APPLN. 2094 2021 

Summary: Where a convict has applied for interim bail, and the court finds out that such convict has fulfilled the requirements of HPC guidelines, then he will be granted interim bail. A single Judge bench comprising of Hon’ble Justice Subramonium Prasad, in the matter of Mudassir Habib Vs. State of NCT of Delhi (BAIL APPLN. 2094/2021), dealt with an issue where the petitioner is alleged of having committed the offences under Section 420,468,471,506,120B and 34 IPC, on the ground of HPC guidelines, for grant of interim bail. The counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner was in custody since 03.03.2021 and drew the attention of the court to a HPC guideline dated 11.05.2021, which stated that where a under trial prisoner had three or more cases pending against him, then his case shall not be considered for the grant of interim bail. The counsel for the petitioner contended that the said resolution squarely covers the petitioner. Further, the counsel referred to a case and stated that a similar exclusion clause had been made in the earlier HPC guidelines also and when identical objections were raised, this Court, by an order dated 13.08.2020, had rejected those objections and had granted the benefit of HPC guidelines to the petitioner in Mohsin Khan v. State of NCT of Delhi. The counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner was covered under clause II of the HPC guidelines dated 04.05.2021. To that, the APP for the state contended that the HPC guidelines dated 04.05.2021 would not be applicable to the petitioner as he was involved in one more case and also pointed out that cases investigated by the Crime Branch were excluded from the operation of the HPC guidelines. After hearing both the sides and going through the cases referred by the Counsel for the petitioner, the court held that the petitioner fulfilled the requirements of the HPC guidelines and hence he was granted interim bail for 90 days from the date of his release, on furnishing of a personal bond of ₹25,000/ – with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent. Also, the petitioner was asked to provide all his mobile numbers to the Investigating Officer and keep them operational at all times and, was directed to report to the concerned Police Station on every Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday.  Moreover, he was directed not to interfere or influence the investigation or inquiry process. Lastly, the petitioner was directed to surrender to the custody immediately on the expiry of the interim bail before the concerned Jail Superintendent. Click Here For The Judgement