The court emphasized that the improper granting of bail due to concealment of a pending application violates judicial discipline, necessitating careful consideration by subordinate courts to prevent miscarriage of justice.

ORDER

Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, J. (ORAL)

1. Petitioner has preferred the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the impugned order dated 07.06.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-09, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi whereby the bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 06.04.2022 by the learned ACMM, Central, Delhi in FIR No.370/2020 under Section 448/451/467/468/471/34/IPC registered at PS: Patel Nagar has been cancelled under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C.

2. In brief, as per the case of the prosecution, the petitioner/accused in the present case committed trespass in the house of the complainant during her absence while they had gone to Gujarat due to Covid-19 in June, 2020. Further, the petitioner claimed possession on the strength of false and fabricated documents i.e. GPA dated 13.03.1985, GPA dated 14.12.1999, Conveyance Deed dated 23.05.1997 and Relinquishment Deed dated 28.07.2020. The petitioner was arrested on 09.09.2021 after ascertaining the falsification of the aforesaid documents and has been charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 448/451/420/468/467/471/34 IPC.

It is further the case of the prosecution as well as Respondent No.2/complainant that while the petitioner was in custody prior to filing of the charge-sheet and after filing of charge-sheet, the bail applications of the petitioner were dismissed by the learned ACMM as well as by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. However, on moving an application under Section 437 Cr.P.C. before the learned ACMM, the petitioner was granted bail vide order dated 06.04.2022 despite the fact that a bail application was already pending before the learned Sessions Court for 08.04.2022. Further, the bail application was disposed of as infructuous by learned Sessions Court only on 08.04.2022 in view of grant of bail by learned ACMM.

3. It may further be noticed that respondent No. 2 (i.e. the complainant in the FIR) challenged the order dated 06.04.2022 passed by the learned ACMM granting bail to the petitioner, by filing an application under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. Vide impugned order dated 07.06.2022, the said application was allowed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-09, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and consequently, the bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 06.04.2022 was cancelled with directions to surrender before the learned ACMM, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi on 09.06.2022.

4. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the aforesaid order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby the bail granted to the petitioner has been cancelled. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in fact there was change of factual position since the charge had been framed by the learned ACMM, prior to releasing the petitioner on bail. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner had orally mentioned the filing of the application before learned Additional Sessions Judge, although the same was not mentioned in the application. It is also claimed that the learned ACMM had the power to grant bail to the petitioner since Section 467 IPC provides for punishment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years.

5. The relevant part of order dated 06.04.2022 passed by the learned ACMM whereby the petitioner was admitted to bail, may be reproduced for ready reference:

"This Court heard the rival submissions advanced on behalf of learned defence counsel as well as learned APP for the State and perused the entire material available on record. Record reveals that chargesheet in the inst