Partly allowed

Archana Singh & Ors. v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Delhi HC26 Jul 2018CRL.M.C./153/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge quashed several non-speaking bail orders passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. The court noted the orders failed to record background facts or discuss submissions, setting aside the rulings and remitting them for a reasoned decision while granting interim bail.

What did the court decide?

Impugned non-speaking bail orders set aside and remitted for fresh hearing; interim bail extended to the accused until fresh decision.

Archana Singh & Ors. Vs State (Govt. of NCT of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

Signature Not Verified Signed By:RAM DATT Signing Date:08.10.2024 16:02 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file an d no page is missing.

¶2

.+ CRL.M.C. 1278/2018& CRL.M.A.4662/2018 SANJAYSHARMA& ANR Petitioners Through: Mr. JaspreetSingh,Advocate.

¶3

versus

¶4

THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR Respondents Through: Mr. AshishDutta, APP for Statewith SI Harpal Madan, EOW. Mr. Madhav Khurana with Mr. Varun SinghThapa, Advocatesfor R-2. + CRL.M.C. 1280/2018 & CRL.M.A. 4677-4678/2018 SPIREWOODSRESIDENTSASSOCIATION Petitioner Through: Mr. RajeshKaliawith Mr. Satya Prakash Yadav & Mr. Harish Vardhan Singh, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

THE STATE GOVT OFNCTOF DELHI & ANR Respondents Through: Mr. AshishDutta,APP for Statewith SI Harpal Madan, EOW. Mr. Madhav Khurana with Mr. Varun SinghThapa,Advocatesfor R-2.

¶7

¶8

CRL.M.C. 1281/2018 & CRL.M.A. 4679-4680/2018 SPIREWOODSRESIDENTSASSOCIATION Petitioner Through: Mr. RajeshKaliawith Mr. Satya Prakash Yadav & Mr. Harish Vardhan Singh, Advocates.

versus

CRL.M.C. 1298/2018 & CRL.M.A. 4745-4746/2018 SPIREWOODS RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajesh Kalia with Mr. Satya Prakash Yadav & Mr. Harish Vardhan Singh, Advocates. versus

¶13

THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR Respondents Through: Mr. Ashish Dutta, APP for State with SI Harpal Madan, EOW. Mr. Madhav Khurana with Mr. Varun Singh Thapa, Advocates for R-2. + CRL.M.C. 1527/2018 & CRL.M.A. 5536/2018 DEEPA KAPOOR Petitioner Through: Mr. Jaspreet Singh, Advocate.

¶14

versus

¶15

¶16

. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR Respondents Through: Mr. Ashish Dutta, APP for State with SI Harpal Madan, EOW. Mr. Madhav Khurana with Mr. Varun Singh Thapa, Advocates for R-2. + . CRL.M.C. 3335/2018 & CRL.M.A. 12084/2018 STATE Petitioner Through: Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for State with SI Harpal Madan, EOW. versus

¶17

SURENDER KUMAR HOODA Respondent Through: Ms. Rebecca John, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Maninder Singh, Ms. Rudrani Tyagi, Ms. Smriti Asmita, Mr. Nihil .Ahuja & Mr. Nivaj Paulson, Advocates.

¶18

CRL.M.C. 153/2018 & conn. Matters

¶19

Page 3 of 6

¶20

CRL.M.C. 3336/2018 & CRL.M.A. 12085/2018 STATE Petitioner Through: Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for State with SI Harpal Madan, EOW.

¶21

versus

¶22

SURENDER KUMAR HOODA Respondent Through: Ms. Rebecca John, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Maninder Singh, Ms. Rudrani Tyagi, Ms. Smriti Asmita, Mr. Nihil Ahuja & Mr. Nivaj Paulson, Advocates.

¶23

CRL.M.C. 3360/2018 & CRL.M.A. 3360/2018 STATE Petitioner

¶24

Through: Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for State with SI Harpal Madan, EOW.

¶25

versus

¶26

SURENDER KUMAR HOODA Respondent Through: Ms. Rebecca John, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Maninder Singh, Ms. Rudrani Tyagi, Ms. Smriti Asmita, Mr. Nihil Ahuja & Mr. Nivaj Paulson, Advocates.

¶27

CORAM:

¶28

¶29

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA

¶30

ORDER

¶31

% 26.07.2018

¶32

These petitions relate to almost identical orders passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Vacation Judge), South-East District, on 29.12.2017 initially in FIR No.114/2016 of Police Station Economic Offences Wing (EOW) and later in FIR Nos. 116/2016 and 64/2016, both now being investigated by EOW, whereby Surender Kumar CRL.M.C. I53/20I8& conn. Matters Page 4 of 6

¶33

Hooda, one of the accused persons in the case was admittedto bail, the said order having been later corrected by order dated 30.12.2017. 2. The State by these petitions has questioned the legality and proprietyofthe said orders,interalia, seekingto point outthe gravity of the crimes involved. Similar is the contention raised by the petitionersin the afore-mentionedpetitions,theirprayeralso being, as in the petitionsofthe State, for thebail ordersto be cancelled.

¶34

During the course of hearing, it has been fairly concededthat the impugned orders do not even take note of the backgroundfacts nor deal with the submissions of either side, barring a general reference to the submissions of the State that the cases involved serious crimes, one of the submissions recorded in the first order about deposit of certain amount of money by or at the instance of accusedhaving been later correctedto explainthat there was no such depositand insteadthere was a proofof availabilityof funds shownto the OfficialLiquidatorin contextof cormectedproceedingsbeforethe company court.

¶35

¶36

After some hearing, though learned senior counsel appearing for Surender Kumar Hooda vociferously argued that the petitioner's case for release on bail is founded on sound footing, also lamenting that the orders do not reflect her submissions, she fairly conceded that the impugnedorders are non-speakingorders. She thus agreed, as is also agreed by the counsel on other side, that the impugned orders may be set aside and the matter relating to the prayer of Surender Kumar Hooda for he to be released on bail in the afore-mentioned CRL.M.C. 153/2018& conn, matters Page 5 of6

¶37

three cases be remitted to the concerned court of Sessions for fresh decisionafter hearing all sides and by passing a reasonedorderwhich can stand the muster of it being a judicial order. While the request to such effectis being grantedand these petitionsare being disposedof, in all fairness, the benefit of release on bail by the impugned orders may be extended to the accused as interim protection till fresh decisionis taken by the Courtof Sessions. Orderedaccordingly.

¶38

The parties shall appear before the concerned Additional Sessions Judge on 3'"'' August, 2018. Needless to add, as a consequenceof this order, the applicationsfor release on bail moved by Surender Kumar Hooda would stand revived on the file of the AdditionalSessionsJudge. Needlessfurtherto add, nothingobserved herein will be construed as even remotely expressing opinion on the merits, of the case.

¶39

With the above observations and directions, the petitions and the applicationsfiled therewithstand disposedof

¶40

¶41

It is hoped and expectedthat the Sessions court will deal with the matters expeditiouslyand pass fresh orders at an early date, preferablywithintwo monthsof the date mentionedabove.

¶42

Dasti.

¶43

JULY 26, 2018

¶44

srb

¶45

CRL.M.C. 153/2018& conn. Matters

¶46

Page 6of6

Archana Singh & Ors. v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Archana Singh & Ors. v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gautam Wadhwa Vs State & Anr.

Kamal Rana & Anr. Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Vinod Kamra Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Krishan Kumar Gupta Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Ram Shobhit Das Vs NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Gulshan Kapoor Vs State NCT of Delhi