(N.V. Ramana and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, JJ.)
Ashok Saxena & Others _________________________ Appellants(s)
v.
State (NCT of Delhi) & Another _________________ Respondent(s)
Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2019 [@ Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 5658 of 2018], decided on January 7, 2019
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants-complainants and the learned Senior counsel/learned counsel appearing for the respondents at length.
3. This appeal was filed by the appellants-complainants seeking to cancel the interim protection granted to Respondent No. 2-accused. It appears that Respondent No. 2 is a Builder and he has entered into agreements with several prospective purchasers and there are allegations that he has not fulfilled his obligations and cheated the people and cases were filed against him and one of the said cases is First Information Report No. 0001 dated 02-01-2015, Police Station – Economic Offences Wing, which was registered against the Developer and its Directors including Respondent No. 2 under Sections 120-B, 406 and 420 of the I.P.C. In the said matter, Respondent No. 2 evaded investigation and he was declared a proclaimed offender. Consequently, Respondent No. 2 moved bail application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Saket court, New Delhi. Initially, the Additional Sessions Judge, Saket Court granted interim bail which was later on cancelled vide its Order dated 08-03-2018 and the matter is still pending there. Subsequently, order 08-03-2018 was challenged before the High Court of Delhi and the High Court, on 16-03-2018, passed the following order:
“For the foregoing reasons, impugned order dated 8th March, 2018 is set aside to the extent it cancels the interim bail of petitioner. However, petitioner shall make genuine endeavour to settle the matter with the remaining complainants in the present FIR. Petitioner shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when he is called upon to do so.”
4. We are informed by the learned counsel appearing for the complainants that the said order was passed by the High Court without giving any notice to them. Moreover, on perusal of the impugned order, we find that the High Court has not indicated any reason to interfere with the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Saket Court, cancelling the interim bail granted to Respondent No. 2. Mr. R. Basant, learned Senior counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2- accused pointed out that his client has made efforts to settle the disputes with several prospective buyers and the huge amount has already been paid. He requests that his client may be allowed to settle the disputes with other complainants also. He further states that the main application for bail, which is pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Saket, is stated to be coming up for hearing on 19th January, 2019.
5. In the above facts and circumstances and also taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned Senior counsel/learned counsel appearing for the parties, and particularly the fact that the order dated 16-03-2018 passed by the High Court does not give any valid reason to interfere with the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Saket Court, we set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court setting aside the order dated 08-03-2018 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Saket. Respondent No. 2 is, therefore, directed to surrender forthwith, failing which the concerned Police Authorities shall take him into custody.
6. The Trial Court, where the matter is stated to be coming up for hearing on 19th January, 2019, is at liberty to consider the application for bail of Respondent No. 2 on its own merits independently and in accordance with law.
7. Before parting with this matter, we make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
8. The appeal is allowed in the afore-stated terms.
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 5658/2018
Ashok Saxena & Ors ____________________________ Petitioner(s)
v.
State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr _______________________ Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and IA 79463/2018-APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)
Date : 07-01-2019 This matter was called on for hearing today.
(Before N.V. Ramana and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, JJ.)
For Petitioner(s) Ms. Naomi Chandra, Adv.
Mr. Samarjit Pattnaik, Adv.
Mr. Satyam Chaturvedi, Adv.
Mrs. Manik Karanjawala, Adv.
Mr. Aviral Kapoor, Adv.
M/S. Karanjawala & Co., AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, Adv.
Ms. Neha Sangwan, Adv.
Mr. V.V.V. Pattabhiram, Adv.
Mr. Shailendra Saini, Adv.
Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, AOR
Mr. R. Basant, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Kapil Sankhla, Adv.
Ms. Meghna Mittal Sankhla, Adv.
Mr. Abhay Kumar, AOR
Mr. Saurabh Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Vineet Kr. Singh, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Pal Singh, Adv. Ms. Apoorva, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
9. Leave granted.
10. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
11. Pending application filed in the matter also stands disposed of.
———
