Allowed

Vikash Kumar Alias Vikas v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Dec 2023CRM-M/672/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows a bail petition filed regarding an order for re-arrest. It holds that while prosecution could apply under Section 482 CrPC, the re-arrest application should have been made under Section 439(2) CrPC by the court granting bail. The order quashing the re-arrest was set aside without prejudice to future applications on merits.

What did the court decide?

The portion of the impugned order directing re-arrest was set aside. The petitioner's petition was allowed with a direction for the State to file an application under Section 439(2) CrPC for cancellat

Vikash Kumar Alias Vikas Vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

CRM-M-672-2022

¶2

232 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM-M-672-2022 Reserved on: 23.11.2023 Pronounced on: 04.12.2023

Vikash Kumar @ Vikas

...Pe!!oner

Versus

State of Haryana …Respondent

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶9

Present: Mr. Vinod Ghai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Arnav Ghai, Advocate and Mr. BNS Marok, Advocate and Mr. Amritpal Singh Maan, Advocate for the pe!!oner.

¶10

Mr. Rajat Gautam, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

¶11

****

¶12

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

¶13

FIR No.	Dated	Police Sta!on	Sec!ons
309	21.08.2021	Kherki Daula,	454, 457, 380, 381, 382, 120-
		Gurugram	B,411 IPC and 25 of Arms Act

¶14

Seeking quashing of order dated 16.12.2021 passed by Addi!onal Sessions Judge, Gurugram in FIR cap!oned above, vide which the Court has allowed the applica!on filed by the prosecu!on to re-arrest the pe!!oner, the accused had come up before this Court by filing the present pe!!on under Sec!on 438 CrPC on 05.01.2022.

¶15

Vide order dated 10.01.2022, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had stayed the impugned order. The interim order is con!nuing !ll date.

¶16

Considering the severe nature of the offence that ini!ally a the? of Rs.50 lacs was reported, but subsequently, as per reply dated 14.04.2022, the police had recovered Rs.5,78,31,000/-, this Court wanted to know that what amount was involved and why ini!ally the complainant had men!oned the amount as Rs.50 lacs and that who owned the money. At that !me, the State counsel, on instruc!ons available at that !me, had stated that the total amount involved was approximately Rs.24 crores. On this, this Court, to know the intensity of the crime had directed the concerned Superintendent of Police to file a report in a sealed cover carrying the names of the persons to whom the stolen money belonged. The said affidavit was handed over in a sealed envelope by the concerned Superintendent of Police, wherein the approximate amount that was stolen

¶17

Jyoti Sharma 2023.12.04 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Sector 1, High Court, Chandigarh

¶18

¶19

CRM-M-672-2022

¶20

and who owned such a massive amount of unaccounted or ill-goDen money has been men!oned. Considering the maDer's sensi!vity, this Court, through the Bench Secretary, returned the affidavit a?er he had resealed it and handed it to the State counsel to further return it to the concerned Superintendent of Police for their record. Needless to say, as of date, it would be appropriate to say that the total amount which was stolen was about Rs.30 crores, and despite so much of delay, the police have been successful in recovering around Rs.10 crores and some gold bars and Land Rover Discovery car.

¶21

Facts of the case are being taken from the reply dated 21.11.2023 which reads as follows:-

¶22

“3. A complaint was submi�ed by one Santosh Singh alleging therein that he is working as Maintaining Project in Alpha G Corp. Management Services Private Limited, Sector 84, Village Sihi, Gurugram. They had collected money from customers for the services rendered to them and kept the same at the office of the company i.e. Flat No. 1102 and 1702, Gurgaon One Society, Sector-84, Kherki Daula, Gurugram. On 20.08.2021, while under instruc4ons to deposit the money in the bank, they found that the money had been stolen from the office. On the basis of above allega4ons, case FIR No. 309 dated 21.08.2021 was ini4ally registered u/s 380 IPC at P.S. Kherki Daula, Gurugram.

¶23

4. That the inves4ga4on was ini4ally conducted by HC Baljeet Singh, P.S. Kherki Daula, Gurugram and therea;er by Crime Unit Sector-31, Gurugram. During the course of inves4ga4on, on 26.08.2021, supplementary statement of complainant was recorded whereby he disclosed that on 21.08.2021, when he checked the office, its doors were found broken and Rs. 50 lakhs and documents rela4ng to flats were found to be stolen and that the said the; had taken place between the night of 20.08.2021 and 21.08.2021. They suspected the involvement of company employees, namely, Parveen Singh and Mohit Kumar, in this the;. On the basis of the same, Sec4on 457 IPC was added in the present case.

¶24

5. That the accused Parveen was arrested on 11.09.2021. His disclosure statement was recorded. On the basis of his disclosure statement, offences punishable under sec4ons 454,381, 120-B IPC were added. His police remand was obtained for one day. He got iden4fied accused Mohit and he was also arrested on the same day i.e. 11.09.2021. His disclosure statement was also recorded wherein he named other accused namely Dara @ Dhare, Amit @ Meeta, Abhinav Sharma @ Chunu, Sonu, Chetan @ Boxer. The police remand of accused Mohit was obtained for four days. Accused Parveen got recovered Rs. 50,000/- out of his share of Rs. 5 Lakhs. Accused Parveen further disclosed that the remaining amount and documents are with his brother Pankaj and brotherin- law (Jija) Shashi Pratap. On 15.09.2021, accused Mohit has got recovered Rs. 45,000/- out of his share of Rs. 5 Lakhs. He has also disclosed in his amended disclosure statement that his father Virender Singh has concealed the remaining amount and documents of flats. Both the accused were sent to judicial custody

¶25

Jyoti Sharma 2023.12.04 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Sector 1, High Court, Chandigarh

¶26

¶27

CRM-M-672-2022

¶28

on 15.09.2021. Accused Sonu was joined in the inves4ga4on on 20.09.2021.

¶29

6. That therea;er, on 05.10.2021, accused Dara Singh @ Dhare, Amit @ Meeta and Abhinav Sharma @ Chunu were arrested. They got recorded their disclosure statements, whereby, they disclosed about the involvement of accused persons, namely, Ajit, Chetan Maan @ Boxer, Bi�u Dahiya, Mohit, Parveen, Vikas and one person having Audi car no. HR-26-CS-3400. In pursuance to the disclosure statement, accused Abhinav Sharma got recovered Rs. 40,000/- and the weapon (12 bore doga) used in the commission of the offence. Therea;er, offence Sec4on 25(1) (a) Arms Act was added. Accused Amit @ Meeta got recovered Rs. 35,000/- and accused Dara Singh got recovered Rs. 45,000/-. On 07.10.2021, accused Abhinav Sharma @ Chunu, vide his disclosure statement, disclosed that the person having Audi car is Dr. Ashwani Kumar and he further disclosed about the involvement of accused ASI Vikas (present pe44oner) of Delhi police in this case.

¶30

7. That on 08.10.2021, the pe44oner ASI Vikas Kumar, was arrested and the offence punishable under Sec4on 411 IPC was added. In his disclosure statement, he disclosed the involvement of gangster Vikas Lagarpuria (present pe44oner Vikas Kumar), Ajit, Sandeep @ Neetu and other persons, in the commission of the;. The pe44oner ASI Vikas got recovered Breeza vehicle used in the commission of offence. Accused Amit and Dara Singh also disclosed about the involvement of gangster Vikas Lagarpuia, Ajit, Chetan, Bi�u, Mohit and Parveen. Another co-accused Shyam Singh was also arrested on 08.10.2021 and his disclosure statement was also recorded. Accused Shashi Pratap and Virender Singh were joined in the inves4ga4on on 15.10.2021 and accused Pankaj was joined in the inves4ga4on on 26.10.2021, in pursuance of the bail granted to them by the Ld. Court.

¶31

8. That on 30.10.2021, the inves4ga4on of the present FIR was transferred to Special Task Force Unit, Gurugram, for further inves4ga4on. On 09.11.2021, accused Sandeep @ Neetu and Dr. Ashwani Kumar surrendered before the STF and therea;er, they were arrested in this case. They got recorded their disclosure statements wherein they named the accused Dr. Sachender Jain Nawal and Dr. Gurpratap Singh. They also got recovered Indian currency notes, US dollars, and gold ar4cles of the value of Rs. 3,90,000,00/- (8106 notes of Rs. 2,000/-, 5799 notes of Rs. 500/-, 95 notes of Rs. 200/-, 110 notes of Rs. 100/-, total amoun4ng to Rs. 1,91,41,500/-, 645 notes of 100 US Dollars each, three gold bricks:- One gold brick marka Suisse 1 KG GOLD 995.0 ESSAYUER FOUNDER 0821, second gold brick marka SWITZERLAND 1 KG GOLD 995.0 MELTE ASSA, third gold brick marka SWITZERLAND 1 KG GOLD 995.0 MELTER ASSAYE Reach gold brick measuring one Kg). The same were taken into police possession. The accused Sandeep @ Neetu disclosed in his disclosure statement that ASI Vikas brought the stolen money which was given to him (ASI Vikas) by the co-accused Chetan @ Boxer, Amit @ Mi�a Ajit Badsi etc., which on coun4ng, was found to be about Rs. 9.50 crores. He has also disclosed that one bag containing stolen money was kept by the pe44oner ASI Vikas. Vide recovery memo dated 16.11.2021, accused Dr. Ashwani Kumar had got recovered the recording of the conversa4on between the accused Dr. Sachender Jain Nawal and gangster Vikas Lagarpuria (present pe44oner Vikas Kumar).

¶32

Jyoti Sharma 2023.12.04 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Sector 1, High Court, Chandigarh

¶33

¶34

CRM-M-672-2022

¶35

9. That the accused Dr. Sachender Jain Nawal and Dr. Gurpratap Singh were arrested on 09.11.2021. They got recorded their disclosure statements, whereby, they have disclosed about their role in the covering up the ma�er by way of bribing and exer4ng influence upon local police officials i.e. Dheeraj Se4a IPS (the then DCP Crime, Gurugram) etc. It was stated by them that Dr. Gurpratap Singh was informed by Shyam Singh, an employee of Alpha G Corp. Society, that a huge amount of Rs. 30-40 crores of unaccounted money has been stored. Therea;er, Gurpratap gave this informa4on to Dr. Sachender Jain Nawal and on geMng this informa4on, Dr. Sachender Jain Nawal stated that it is a good plan and one gangster Vikas Lagarpuria is known to him and he can be involved in commission of the;, as Joginder (uncle of Vikas Lagarpuria) is employed as driver with Dr. Nawal. In the month of August 2021, Dr. Sachender Jain Nawal, with the aid of gangster Vikas Lagarpuria and his gang members, got commi�ed the; of said amount. Gurpratap had received Rs. 5 Lakhs of his share from Dr. Sachender Jain Nawal. On 13.11.2021, Dr. Sachender Jain Nawal made his amended disclosure statement. On the basis of aforesaid disclosure statement, Sec4ons 7/8 of P.C. Act, were added in the present case. On 07.12.2021, accused Ravinder @ Bi�u Dahiya was arrested. His disclosure statement was recorded wherein he named accused Gurpreet. A sum of Rs. 1,83,16,000/(Rupees one crore eighty three lakhs sixteen thousand only) and broken mobile IMEI No. 869285055968470were recovered from him. Sec4on 201 IPC was added in the present case.

¶36

10. That therea;er, the statements of Ravinder @ Bi�u Dahiya, Sandeep @ Neetu and Dr. Ashwani Kumar were recorded in presence of Tehsildar. The sum and substance of their statements was that as per instruc4ons of Vikas Lagarpuria, they had handed over bags containing some of the stolen money i.e. Indian Currency notes, US Dollars and gold ar4cles of the value of Rs. 5,73,16,000/- stolen money, to the persons stated by him i.e. accused Gurpreet Singh and ASI Vikas. They were informed by Vikas Lagarpuria that he and Dr. Sachender Jain Nawal had planned to commit the; and Dr. Sachender Jain Nawal had been given his share and also stated that Dr. Sachender Jain Nawal is making efforts to cover up the mul4 crores heist by way of ci4ng his rela4ons with DCP Dheeraj Se4a and bribing to DCP Dheeraj Se4a and that it will take 2-5 days to se�le the ma�er. On the asking of Vikas Lagarpuria, he (Dr. Ashwani Kumar) had handed over Rs. 2 Crores to Dr. Sachender Jain Nawal at his Arihant Hospital, Sector 52, Gurugram. Vikas Lagarpuria had sent some more money to them (i.e. accused Ravinder @ Bi�u Dahiya, Sandeep @ Neetu and Dr. Ashwani Kumar) for handing over the same to Dr. Sachender Jain Nawal for covering up the ma�er from police but he (Dr. Sachender Jain Nawal) could not be contacted and Vikas Lagarpuria had asked them to keep money with them (i.e. accused Ravinder @ Bi�u Dahiya, Sandeep @ Neetu and Dr. Ashwani Kumar).”

¶37

The pe!!oner is aggrieved by an order dated 16.12.2021 passed by Addi!onal Sessions Judge, Gurugram. It would be appropriate to refer to the gist of the order dated 16.12.2021 passed by Addi!onal Sessions Judge Gurugram. It has been men!oned

¶38

in the said order that the prosecu!on has filed an applica!on seeking permission to re-

¶39

Jyoti Sharma 2023.12.04 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Sector 1, High Court, Chandigarh

¶40

¶41

CRM-M-672-2022

¶42

arrest the pe!!oner on the ground that co-accused Suchender Jain Nawal had disclosed that the pe!!oner, who was posted as ASI had received a sum of Rs.2.5 crores for geGng the maDer seDled by the Gurugram police. In addi!on, there were allega!ons that the accused pe!!oner had given a bribe to DCP Dheeraj Se!a to cover up the maDer. Since the pe!!oner was already granted bail, the State sought necessary permission to re-arrest the pe!!oner given the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Pradeep Ram v. The State of Jharkhand and Ors., (2019) 17 SCC 326 on the addi!on of PC Act and given changed circumstances, and the Court allowed the applica!on. Feeling aggrieved, the pe!!oner came up before this court by filing the present pe!!on.

¶43

The said order dealt with the compliance of its previous order, and the Learned Addi!onal Sessions Judge, Gurugram also passed a detailed and elabora!ve order, relevant extract whereof is reproduced hereina?er:-

¶44

“10. Perusal of police file further suggest that inves4ga4on has stuck at DCP Dheeraj Se4a. Inves4ga4ng Agency has neither inves4gated the role of any junior officers nor the role of any senior police officer of DCP Dheeraj Se4a. As such, the approach of inves4ga4ng agency (STF) qua examina4on of role of police officers is quite inert and so;, which is nothing, but in-ac4on, whether innocent or blame-worthy, on the part of the inves4ga4ng agency (STF) in discharging its du4es and obliga4ons in the interest of ci4zens. From the circumstances, as unfolded by the inves4ga4ng agency (STF), the perceived commitment and sincerity in carrying out the inves4ga4on qua the involvement of public persons, is very well reflected and same is commendable but needle of lurking suspicion is also no4ceable when it comes to the inves4ga4on of role of local police officers), including DCP Dheeraj Se4a, in covering up the mul4-crores heist.

¶45

11. Strange are the ways in which people indulging in corrup4on operate and these ways turn into more strange when the opera4ves operate in public offices especially in a case like the one in hand. Very o;en, a public servant unfortunately, would like to enjoy the blessings of his immediate superior and such blessings is most likely not to be gra4s and therefore, someone has rightly said that there is nothing like a free lunch. Therefore, this Court wants to lay stress upon the fact that he;y sum involved in the case and a considerable amount exchanging hands with the police officer in ques4on i.e. DCP Dheeraj Se4a, should not halt the inves4ga4on there itself and every bit should be done to nail the truth by conduc4ng an impar4al, fearless and thorough inves4ga4on. This is more so when this Court in a way is seized of onerous task of monitoring the inves4ga4on.

¶46

12. It is the requirement of law that while carrying out the inves4ga4on of the offences, which involves not only public men but also police officers, the approach of the

¶47

Jyoti Sharma 2023.12.04 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Sector 1, High Court, Chandigarh

¶48

¶49

CRM-M-672-2022

¶50

inves4ga4ng agency, should be of the standard that jus4ce must not only be done, but also be seen and perceived to be done. The Courts are the sen4nels of jus4ce and have been vested with the power of supervision to ensure that rights of ci4zens are to be protected. Courts have to maintain a constant vigil against the inac4on of authori4es in discharging their du4es and obliga4ons in the interest of public at large, for whom they exist.

¶51

13. In these circumstances, inves4ga4ng agency (STF) is directed to examine the role of all the police officers, who have dealt with this case, either in supervisory capacity or being involved in the inves4ga4on or otherwise. Inves4ga4ng Agency is further directed to unravel all the mysterious aspects of this case. Inves4ga4ng Agency is further directed to trace out the source of money as well as the purpose for which it was stored. Status report (in the form of affidavit) be filed on the next date of hearing i.e. 30.12.2021, so that this Court can take further correc4ve measures, in case of any lapse found on the part of the inves4ga4ng agency. A copy of this order be supplied to the Inves4ga4ng Officer for necessary compliance.”

¶52

In para no. 10, the Sessions Court observed that the inves!ga!on was incomplete because some police officers were not interrogated, and the inves!ga!on was so?. Thus, finally, given the changed circumstances, the Special Task Force was directed to examine the role of police officers. Further, the inves!ga!ng agency was directed to trace out the source of money and the purpose for which it was stolen so that the Court could take all correc!ve measures for all lapses. Considering the seriousness of the ma)er, in the exercise of extraordinary powers conferred to the High Courts under sec/on 482 of CrPC, this Court directs the concerned Superintendent of Police and all the officers superior to the SP to ensure that the above order is complied with if not already done. The concerned SP is directed to inform the concerned Income-tax Officials about the ownership and the amount of the money men/oned above and also share the informa/on that such Income Tax Officials may need or ask .

¶53

Regarding the controversy in issue, I have heard counsel for the par!es and gone through the record.

¶54

Pe!!oner seeks quashing of the said order on the grounds that the bail, once granted, cannot be canceled because the sentence that is prescribed in the newly added sec!on is not greater than the previous ones, where he got bail; the prosecu!on case is based on a false and concocted story; and further, there is no evidence that he has received any penny. In addi!on, the pe!!oner states that he did not violate any Jyoti Sharma2023.12.04 15:03 condi!on of the impugned order, and his custodial interroga!on is not required. Mr. I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Sector 1, High Court, Chandigarh

¶55

¶56

CRM-M-672-2022

¶57

Vinod Ghai, Sr. Advocate further submits that law is well seDled in judgments of Supreme Court in Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel and others vs State of Gujarat, (2009) 6 SCC 332 and states that a person who is on bail should not be arrested ordinarily.

¶58

Mr. Rajat Gautam, Sr. Addi!onal Advocate General of Haryana, states that the pe!!oner should have applied for bail a?er surrendering himself, and the pe!!oner under sec!on 482 is not maintainable.

¶59

Mr. Rajat Gautam, Addi!onal Advocate General for Haryana submiDed that a?er gathering more inputs and evidence in their inves!ga!on, which led to the addi!on of offences punishable under the Preven!on of Corrup!on Act, 1988, and thus, in the opinion that the prosecu!on required pe!!oner’s further custodial interroga!on as well as arrest, the prosecu!on applied to the Addi!onal Sessions Judge, Gurugram, to rearrest the pe!!oner.

¶60

As per Annexure P-3, vide order dated 19-10-2021, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram, the pe!!oner had got regular bail under sec!on 437 CrPC. Thus, the bail granted by CJM could have been canceled under sec!on 437(5)¹ of CrPC only by CJM and by appellate courts under sec!on 439(2)² CrPC. A perusal of para 2 of the impugned order dated 16-12-2021 reveals that the prosecu!on had applied for re-arrest and not for cancella!on of bail. The applica!on for re-arrest could only have been filed before the court that had granted bail, which, in the case of the pe!!oner, was the court of CJM, Gurugram. Since the maDer was before the Sessions Court, the appropriate remedy for the prosecu!on was to apply to sec!on 439(2) seeking cancella!on of bail because any bail granted under chapter XXIII, which deals with bail, could have been canceled by the Sessions Court or High Court.

¶61

The scope of bail on addi!on of a new penal offence has been dealt with by Court and it is appropriate to refer to the following prominent judicial precedents.

¶62

In Hamida v. Rashid and Ors., (2008) 1 SCC 474, Supreme Court holds,

¶63

[10]. In the case in hand, the accused respondents could apply for bail afresh a?er the offence had been converted into one under Sec!on 304 IPC. They deliberately did not do so and filed a pe!!on under Sec!on 482 Cr.P.C. in order to circumvent the procedure whereunder they would have been required to

¶64

1 437. When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence. [( 1 ) When any person accused of, or suspected of, the commission of any non-bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer in charge of a police sta!on or appears or is brought before a Court other than the High Court or Court of session, he may be released on bail, but— xxx

¶65

( 5 ) Any Court which has released a person on bail under sub-sec!on ( 1 ) or sub-sec!on ( 2 ) , may, if it considers it necessary so to do, direct that such person be arrested and commit him to custody.

¶66

2 439( 2 ) A High Court or Court of Session may direct that any person who has been released on bail under this Chapter be arrested and commit him to custody.

¶67

Jyoti Sharma 2023.12.04 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Sector 1, High Court, Chandigarh

¶68

¶69

CRM-M-672-2022

¶70

surrender as the bail applica!on could be entertained and heard only if the accused were in custody. It is important to note that no order adverse to the accused respondents had been passed by any Court nor there was any miscarriage of jus!ce or any illegality. In such circumstances, the High Court commiDed manifest error of law in entertaining a pe!!on under Sec!on 482 Cr.P.C. and issuing a direc!on to the subordinate court to accept the sure!es and bail bonds for the offence under Sec!on 304 IPC. The effect of the order passed by the High Court is that the accused a?er geGng bail in an offence under Sec!on 324, 352 and 506 IPC on the very day on which they were taken into custody, got an order of bail in their favour even a?er the injured had succumbed to his injuries and the case had been converted into one under Sec!on 304 IPC without any Court examining the case on merits, as it stood a?er conversion of the offence. The procedure laid down for grant of bail under Sec!on 439 Cr.P.C., though available to the accused respondents, having not been availed of, the exercise of power by the High Court under Sec!on 482 Cr.P.C. is clearly illegal and the impugned order passed by it has to be set aside.

¶71

In Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel and Ors. v. State of Gujarat, MANU/SC/0858/2009, Supreme Court holds,

¶72

[23]. Appellants had been granted bail. They are not in custody of the court. They could not be taken in custody ordinarily unless their bail was cancelled. The High Court, in our opinion, was not correct in holding that as further inves!ga!on was required, Subsec!on (2) of Sec!on 167 of the Code gives ample power for grant of police remand.

¶73

In Pradeep Ram v. The State of Jharkhand and Ors., (2019) 17 SCC 326, the accused who was already on bail, offences Under Sec!ons 16, 17, 20 and 23 of the Unlawful Ac!vi!es (Preven!on) Act, 1967 were added against the Accused, and answering the following proposi!on, the Supreme Court holds, as follows,

¶74

(i) Whether in a case where an Accused has been bailed out in a criminal case, in which case, subsequently new offences are added, is it necessary that bail earlier granted should be cancelled for taking the Accused in custody?

¶75

[31]. In view of the foregoing discussions, we arrive at following conclusions in respect of a circumstance where a?er grant of bail to an Accused, further cognizable and non bailable offences are added:

¶76

(i) The Accused can surrender and apply for bail for newly added cognizable and non-bailable offences. In event of refusal of bail, the Accused can certainly be arrested.

¶77

(ii) The inves!ga!ng agency can seek order from the court Under Sec!on 437(5) or 439(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure for arrest of the Accused and his custody.

¶78

(iii) The Court, in exercise of power Under Sec!on 437(5) or 439(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, can direct for taking into custody the Accused who has already been granted bail a?er cancella!on of his bail. The Court in exercise of power Under

¶79

Jyoti Sharma 2023.12.04 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Sector 1, High Court, Chandigarh

¶80

¶81

CRM-M-672-2022

¶82

Sec!on 437(5) as well as Sec!on 439(2) can direct the person who has already been granted bail to be arrested and commit him to custody on addi!on of graver and non-cognizable offences which may not be necessary always with order of cancelling of earlier bail.

¶83

(iv) In a case where an Accused has already been granted bail, the inves!ga!ng authority on addi!on of an offence or offences may not proceed to arrest the Accused, but for arres!ng the Accused on such addi!on of offence or offences it need to obtain an order to arrest the Accused from the Court which had granted the bail.

¶84

In the light of the judicial precedents men!oned above, an analysis of the arguments addressed by the par!es as well as the contents of the pe!!on and the replies filed by the State would lead to the following outcome.

¶85

Since the Prosecu!on had sought re-arrest from the sessions court and not the cancella!on of bail, as such the applica!on for re-arrest under sec!on 437(5) CrPC could have been filed only before the court which had granted the bail, which in this case was the court of CJM, Gurugram. Given this, the said por!on of the impugned order dated 16-12-2021 is set aside. However, keeping in view the very serious nature of allega!ons against the pe!!oner, the prosecu!on may file an applica!on under sec!on 439(2) CrPC for cancella!on of bail before the concerned Sessions Court. It is further clarified that in case the State files an applica!on for cancella!on of bail of the pe!!oner, the same would be decided on its merits without being influenced by any of the observa!ons made by this Court in this order.

¶86

Pe//on is allowed with the aforesaid observa/ons .

¶87

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 04.12.2023 Jyo! Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: YES .

¶88

Jyoti Sharma 2023.12.04 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Sector 1, High Court, Chandigarh

¶89

Vikash Kumar Alias Vikas v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikash Kumar Alias Vikas v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohan Singh Vs State of Punjab

Arun Mahajan Vs State of Haryana

Arun Mahajan Vs State of Haryana

Jagdev Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Bassan Singh and Anr. Vs State of Haryana

Surjit Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Haryana