Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Del) 400

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
AMIT MAHAJAN, J.
Varun Goyal & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State NCT of Delhi - Respondent
Bail Appln. Nos. 2710, 2711 of 2022
Decided On : 03-03-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Prashant Mehta, Mr. Varun Gupta, Ms. Simran Wason, Mr. Arun, Mr. Shubham, Ms. Soumya & Mr. Angad.
For the Respondents: Ms. Richa Dhawan, APP and Mr. Raghuvinder Varma, APP with Inspector Gulshan Nagpal, Special Branch and Inspector B.K. Pandey, Mr. Daviendamer Hora.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the right to default bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. and the duty of the police to inform the Magistrate of any additional sections during the investigation.

Headnote:
DEFAULT BAIL - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - [Section 482, Cr.P.C.] - [Sections 304/308/120B/34, IPC] - [Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the application of Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. and the interpretation of Sections 304, 308, 120B, 467, 34 of IPC. The court emphasized the right to default bail and the requirement for completion of investigation within specified periods based on the nature of the offense. The court also highlighted the duty of the police to bring any additional sections to the knowledge of the Magistrate before the expiry of the specified period for investigation. The judgment clarified the significance of the chargesheet filing and the accused's right to default bail.]
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought default bail under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 462/2022, under Sections 304/308/120B/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Mundka. The charge sheet was not filed within 60 days from the detention, leading to the filing of the present petitions.
Finding of the Court:

The court analyzed the application of Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. and the interpretation of Sections 304, 308, 120B, 467, 34 of IPC. It emphasized the right to default bail and the requirement for completion of investigation within specified periods based on the nature of the offense. The court also highlighted the duty of the police to bring any additional sections to the knowledge of the Magistrate before the expiry of the specified period for investigation. The judgment clarified the significance of the chargesheet filing and the accused's right to default bail.
Issues: The issues involved the interpretation of the right to default bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., the application of Sections 304, 308, 120B, 467, 34 of IPC, and the duty of the police to inform the Magistrate of any additional sections during the investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the accused is entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. and emphasized the duty of the police to bring any additional sections to the knowledge of the Magistrate before the expiry of the specified period for investigation. The judgment clarified the significance of the chargesheet filing and the accused's right to default bail.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitions and directed the petitioners to be released on bail, subject to specific terms and conditions.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present Petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”), seeking default bail in FIR No. 462/2022, under Sections 304/308/120B/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), registered at Police Station Mundka.

2. FIR No. 462/2022 was registered on 14.05.2022, against the Petitioners and other accused persons and the petitioners were also arrested on the said date.

3. On 16.07.2022, an application was filed by the Petitioners under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C., seeking default bail contending that the charge sheet was not filed within a period of sixty days from the detention that is 14.05.2022. The said application was dismissed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, by order dated 27.07.2022 and the Revision Petition filed against the said order was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by order dated 08.08.2022, which led to the filing of the present petitions.

4. The applications filed by the petitioners were dismissed on the ground that during the course of investigation, Section 467 of IPC was added and in terms of the report filed by the State, Section 304, Part I of IPC is attracted. Both these sections attract maximum imprisonment up to life. The accused would be entitled for benefit under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. only if the charge sheet is not filed within 90 days of the detention. The chargesheet was filed on 08.08.2022.

Brief facts

5. The FIR under Sections 304/308/120B/34 of IPC was registered against the petitioners, Harish Goyal and Varun Goyal, who are the Directors of Cole Impex Pvt. Ltd. (“Accused Company”). Accused company was operating from 1st& 2nd floors of the demised premises Plot No.193, Main Rohtak Road, which is a four-storey building and was dealing in the business of CCTV cameras and 4G Sim routers.

6. It was alleged that on 13.05.2022, at around 4:30 PM, a fire broke out during “Motivational Programme” in the demised premises and the 1st, 2nd and 3rd floor of the four-storey building was engulfed by fire in which 27 persons died and 44 persons were injured.

7. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that neither any appropriate fire systems were fitted nor any other precautions were taken to prevent the fire incident. There was single entry-exit in the side lane on the rear side of the building due to which the people could not come out of the building. This led to registration of the above-mentioned FIR.

8. The petitioners were, thereafter, arrested on 14.05.2022.

Submissions

9. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submit that the FIR was registered under Section 304 and was silent on the aspect, whether the same was under Part I or Part II.

10. He further submits that Section 467 of IPC has been added only to deny the statutory right of the petitioners to apply for the default bail in terms of Section 167(2) of CrPC. On the bare perusal of the allegation, it is apparent that the provisions of Section 467 could not have been invoked in relation to investigation being carried out in the present FIR.

11. He further submits that it is not in dispute that the fire broke out in the premises in which, not only the father of the petitioners (Late Sh. Amarnath Goyal) died of the burn injuries but the petitioners also got burnt.

12. The present case, at best, can be of causing death by negligence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend up to two years. He submits that even if it is to be alleged that the Petitioners had knowledge that the Act done is likely to cause death, it cannot be argued by any stretch of imagination that they had any intention of causing death or causing such bodily injuries as is likely to cause death, so as to invite punishment of the imprisonment for life and entitling the State to complete investigation within 90 days from the date of detention.

13. He further argues that the alleged offence under Section 467 IPC is unrelated and unconnected with the present FIR. The same cannot be ar