Petitioner sought cancellation of regular bail granted to a respondent accused of online extortion. High Court declined interference, finding no ground to disturb the lower order despite pending investigation and foreign victims.
Petition to quash the bail order dated 23.03.2023 was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~39
ROMAIN RANCIERE .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Antara Mishra, Mr. Kuldeep Jauhari, Mr. Karan Ahuja and Ms. Alka Nupur Singh, Advocates.
versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR.....Respondents Through: Mr. Ravi Sharma, SPP with Mr. Prem Tosh K. Mishra, Mr. Praphull Kumar, Mr. Ishann Bhardwaj and Ms. Madhulika Rai Sharma, Advocates for respondent No.1. Ms. Jayanthi Jha, Advocate for respondent No.2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI O R D E R % 04.09.2024
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/09/2024 at 12:12:58
It is stated that besides the present complainant, other victims were also extorted of money. Additionally, it is stated that while the investigation was still pending qua the other victims, the impugned order came to be passed within four months from the arrest of the respondent No.2.
“11. Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused Rahul Kumar has made following submissions :
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/09/2024 at 12:12:58
(ii) Main Roshin VS State of Kerala on 13 October, 2020 (Kerala High Court)
16. Applicant/Accused is stated to be in JC since 1.12.2022 and chargesheet has already been filed. Trial Court Records would indicate that case is fixed for argument on charge on 27.3.2023. Investigation qua victim no.1 has already been completed. It is true that further investigation is pending qua rest of the victims but it is not denied that it will take some more time as the victims are resident of USA and IO has proceeded to contact them through MLAT process.”
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/09/2024 at 12:12:58
statedly 62% physically challenged and the charge-sheet having been filed and also the fact that the victims are based aboard, there is no allegation or apprehension of tempering with the evidence. Further more than one and half year has passed since passing of the impugned order and even charges have not been framed, and thus I find no ground to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J
SEPTEMBER 4, 2024 ga
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/09/2024 at 12:12:58
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the bail granted to respondent No.2 should be quashed given the pending chargesheet and foreign victims.
Whether the acquisition of evidence and pending investigation justify refusing bail to the physically impaired appellant.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Chidambaram. P. Vs Directorate of EnforcementReferred¶29
(2019) (16) Scale 870
Main Roshin VS State of KeralaReferred¶31
Main Roshin VS State of Kerala
Romain Ranciere
Central Bureau of Investigation
Rahul Kumar
Manoj Kumar Ohri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
