Back
High Court Of Delhi
CHANDER PAL - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) 2800 of 1992
Decided On : 02/22/1993
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 482 - ANTICIPATORY BAIL - CANCELLATION - WITHDRAWAL OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION - JURISDICTION OF COURT - SECTION 167(2) - CUSTODY OF ACCUSED - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, accused of murder, sought to quash non-bailable warrants issued against them, claiming they were on anticipatory bail granted by the Calcutta High Court. The High Court later withdrew the anticipatory bail order, and the petitioners withdrew their anticipatory bail applications before the Delhi Sessions Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the anticipatory bail granted by the Calcutta High Court was not valid as the offense was later converted from Section 307 to Section 302 IPC due to the death of the victim. The petitioners' withdrawal of their anticipatory bail applications before the Delhi Sessions Court showed their intent to abandon the anticipatory bail. The court also found that the petitioners had misled the court by concealing the withdrawal of their anticipatory bail applications.
Issues: 1. Whether the anticipatory bail granted by the Calcutta High Court was valid after the offense was converted from Section 307 to Section 302 IPC? 2. Whether the petitioners' withdrawal of their anticipatory bail applications before the Delhi Sessions Court affected the validity of the anticipatory bail? 3. Whether the petitioners had misled the court by concealing the withdrawal of their anticipatory bail applications?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the anticipatory bail granted by the Calcutta High Court was not valid after the offense was converted from Section 307 to Section 302 IPC because the circumstances had changed significantly, and the petitioners were no longer entitled to anticipatory bail for the more serious offense. 2. The court held that the petitioners' withdrawal of their anticipatory bail applications before the Delhi Sessions Court showed their intent to abandon the anticipatory bail and that they could not rely on it to challenge the non-bailable warrants issued against them. 3. The court held that the petitioners had misled the court by concealing the withdrawal of their anticipatory bail applications, which amounted to practicing fraud on the court.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitions and directed the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, to issue non-bailable warrants of arrest against the petitioners and detain them in judicial custody.
Key Points: - The anticipatory bail granted for a lesser offense (Section 307) was not valid for the more serious offense (Section 302) after the victim's death (!) . - The petitioners' withdrawal of their anticipatory bail applications showed their intent to abandon the bail and they could not rely on it to challenge non-bailable warrants (!) . - The petitioners misled the court by concealing the withdrawal of their anticipatory bail applications, which amounted to practicing fraud on the court (!) . - The order of anticipatory bail was cancelled and the petitioners were not entitled to bail under the changed circumstances (!) . - The non-bailable warrants issued against the petitioners were deemed lawful and proper to detain them (!) .
( 1 ) I propose to dispose of both these petitions bya common order. Cr M (M) 2800/92 is filed by four petitioners whereasthe second petition (Cr. M. (M) 2846/92) is filed by only two of them. Theseare tiled under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (Code forshort) and Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the first petition,the relief sought, is that the order dated 3. 9. 1992 of the learned M. M. forissuing processes under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code may be declarednull and void while in the second petition order for issue of non-bailablewarrants issued against them on 18. 8,92 is sought to be quashed, beingillegal and arbitrary as the petitioners were on bail and their bail had notbeen cancelled.
( 2 ) THE brief facts according to the story of the prosecution basedon the statement of Sh. Ved Parkash. injured (who subsequently died on8. 6. 92) are that at about 9. 45 a. m. on 29. 4. 1992 he was going from his housewith a Lota containing Lussi to his Baithak to meet his guests. When hereached near the house of Chander Pal petitioner, he found the petitionerslok Pal, Amrik Singh and Chander Pal emerging from the house of Chanderpal. They called him from behind. At first he stopped for a moment,but considering that there were bitter relations with them on account of aland dispute and sensing their ill intentions, he started running. Theyfollowed him. When lie w. is in front of the Baithak of Sultan Singh, thepetitioner Prem Kumar alias Kaira alias Pehlwan and Vikram also camethere. Ved Parkash hurriedly entered the room. From behind Lok Paland Amrik Singh also entered. Lok Pal petitioner caught hold of himwhile petitioner Amrik Singh after taking out a revolver from his rightdhab fired at him. He received bullet injuries on his neck and immediatelyfell down. Other persons also came in. Sultan Singh who was there andtried to save him was also given injuries. He further stated that Chanderpal, Kaira alias Prem Kumar petitioners and Vikram were standing outside. On seeing the crowd collecting all of them ran away. The occurrence is alleged to have been witnessed by Rishi Pal and Saroj, who reachedthere on hearing him cry. Ved Parkash and Sultan Singh were got admittedin Jaipur Golden Hospital. Rohni. Next day Ved Parkash was shiftedto Batra Hospital where he expired on 8. 6. 92 due to injuries receivedby him. So the case was converted from Section 307 Indian Penal Code to Section 302ipc.
( 3 ) I have heard arguments advanced by Mr. P. N, Lekhi, Sr. Advocate on behalf of the petitioners, Sh. P. P. Grover for Smt. Satya Devi wifeof the deceased Vcd Parkash and Sh. R. D. Jolly, Advocate on behalf of thestate.
( 4 ) IT appears that all the four petitioners describing themselves as residents of Mushtaque All Street, PS Park Sheet, Calcutta filed four separateapplications for anticipatory bail in the Court of learned Chief Judgecity Sessions Court, Calcutta. The applications of Amar Singh and Lok,pal petitioners were filed on 13. 5. 1992 while by the two remaining petitioners on 22. 5. 92. At that lime the case registered against the petitionerswas under Sections 307/452/34 Indian Penal Code in PS Mangol Pun, Delhi. It appearsthat at the time of hearing the petitions, PP was present in Court of learnedchief Judge. It was recorded that he did not oppose the petition andsince there was no other material before the learned Judge to reject thepetition and he was not inclined to reject is so no the facts and circumstancessubmitted on behalf of the petitioners, the petitions were allowed and itwas directed that in the event of their arrest, they will be released on furnishing personal bonds of Rs. 5,000. 00 with two sureties each of the like amount. However, certain conditions were imposed in respect of each petitionerwhich were as follows :
(1) That the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required.
(2) That the petitioner shall not directly or indir
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
