Back
Parvesh Mann's Bail Dismissed by Delhi HC for '' After Hiding Prior Rejections
The
on
dismissed the
plea of Parvesh Mann, an accused in a murder and arms case, after finding that he had concealed the fact that his earlier bail applications had been rejected by another bench and had sought to transfer the fresh plea to a different bench. Justice Girish Kathpalia termed the conduct a
"clear case of
"
and deprecated the practice.
Case Background
Parvesh Mann @ Sagar is facing trial for offences under , 34, and , and , in connection with FIR No. 359/2022 registered at the . He had approached the High Court seeking .
A Bid to Sidestep a Judge?
The application was initially listed before Justice Saurabh Banerjee on . On that day, Mann's counsel requested that the matter be placed before Justice Girish Kathpalia, citing a pending before the latter bench. Justice Banerjee acceded to the request, and the was listed before Justice Kathpalia.
The Unravelling of a Concealment
At the outset of the hearing before Justice Kathpalia, the state's counsel informed the court that Mann had previously filed three bail applications—one and two —all of which had been dismissed by Justice Banerjee. The prosecution submitted that the earlier bench appeared to have been misled into transferring the case. Mann's counsel responded that only applications had been dismissed, not a regular .
Court's Discovery
A law researcher of the court produced an order dated in No. 2959/2023, which showed that Mann's earlier regular had indeed been dismissed by Justice Banerjee. The court noted that this fact had been concealed from Justice Banerjee while seeking the transfer.
Court's Observations
Justice Kathpalia observed:
"It seems that having realized that from the bench of HMJ Saurabh Banerjee, bail had been declined once in regular
and twice in interim
, learned counsel concealed all those facts and made a request before HMJ Saurabh Banerjee in the present
for transfer of the application to this bench."
The court further stated:
"Such conduct on the part of the accused/applicant has to be deprecated. It is a clear case of
."
Decision and Implications
The court did not examine the merits of the case and dismissed the and the accompanying application. The order serves as a strong warning against attempts to circumvent the court process by hiding prior adverse orders. The dismissal reaffirms that will not be tolerated by the judiciary.
