S M MUDDASSIR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . This revision petition by the accused is directed against the order dated 7th February 2002 of an Additional Sessions Judge cancelling the bail granted by him by the order dated 20/10/2000.

(2.) . Facts giving rise to this petition, in brief, are these. FIR No.43/2000 under sections 420/406/409/468/471/ 120B IPC PS New Friends Colony was registered on the complaint made by one K.R.Singh. The allegations made therein were that complainant had been cheated by Al Falah Group of Companies and its Chairman and directors to the tune of Rs.95 lakhs which they collected from him under various schemes. After registration of case, about 350 more complaints were received from other investors against said Al Falah Group of Companies and its directors alleging cheating and misappropriation of their amounts of approximately Rs.7.5 crores; First chargesheet was filed on 26/04/2000 in which only 3 directors were chargesheeted. Petitioner who was one of the directors of company and shown in column No.2 in that chargesheet, was arrested on 5/09/2000 and admitted to bail on 20th October 2000. In second chargesheet filed on 31/03/2001, petitioner has been arrayed as one of the accused. In the meantime an application dated 18/12/2000 was tiled seeking cancellation of bail of the petitioner and by the order dated 7th February 2002 his bail has been cancelled.

(3.) . Submission advanced by Sh.D.C.Mathur for petitioner was that the petitioner is a lecturer in Department of Civil Engineering, Jamila Milia Islamia, New Delhi and was a dormant director of A1 Falah Group of Companies. First chargesheet filed against 3 co-accused was before the court at the time bail order dated 20/10/2000 was passed. Bail in terms of impugned order was cancelled ignoring the well established principles of law. In support ?? submission, reliance was placed on the decisions in State (Delhi Administration) vs. Sanjay Gandhi. (1978) 2 SCC 411; Mohan Singh, Advocate vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh. (1978) 2 SCC 366; Dolat Ram and others vs. State of Haryana. (1995) 1 SCC 349 and Onkar Gulati vs. The State and another, 1998(1) JCC(Delhi) 100. On the other hand,it was contended by Sh.Anil Soni for respondent that on 20th October 2000 on which date the petitioner was admitted to bail, IO could not reach the court and instruct APP as he was busy in conducting investigation in another case. In terms of said order the bail was not granted on merits but on concessional statement made by APP. Taking note of incriminating evidence appearing against the petitioner, bail had been rightly cancelled by the impugned order by the same Additional Sessions Judge who granted the bail. Reliance was placed on the judgment in Rama Mhatre vs. Dattatraya Janu Vayale and others, 1981 Crl.L.J.1605.