RANJEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Misc. Petition has been filed impugning the order dated 12.3.2012 whereby the bail granted by learned Metropolitan Magistrate was cancelled by learned Additional Sessions Judge mainly on the ground that judicial propriety did not permit the learned M.M. to grant bail when the same had already been declined by learned A.S.J.

(2.) THE facts leading to registration of case FIR No.117/2011, P.S. Nihal Vihar under Section 420/406/34 IPC are that on 14.9.2009, Ravi Hasan(co -accused) filed a civil Suit No.CS(OS) No.1795/2009 for declaration, possession and permanent injunction claiming to be the owner of entire plot/built up property measuring 500 sq. Yards out of Khasra No.77/138 18 situated in Revenue village of Nangloi Jat, Delhi. The ownership was claimed on the basis of the same being purchased on 19.3.2008 for consideration of Rs.57,26,600/ - from the petitioner Ranjeet Singh. After perusing the status report submitted by SHO, Nihal Vihar, on the observation made by this Court in the order dt.5.4.2011, the above said FIR was registered. The petitioner was arrested on 2.6.2011 and, thereafter, number of bail applications were filed which would be referred hereinafter:

(3.) WHILE praying for quashing of the order dated 5.8.2011 passed by learned ASJ cancelling the bail application of the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that legal position is settled in Nityanand Rai V. State of Bihar and Another (2005) 4 SCC 178 and State of U.P. through CBI V. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21 wherein it was held that consideration of an application for grant of bail stands on a different footing than one for cancellation of bail. Grounds for cancellation of bail should be those which arose after the grant of bail and should be referable to the conduct of the accused while on bail. In an application for cancellation of bail subsequent to release of bail and the supervening circumstance alone are relevant. It has been urged that in the instant case, there is nothing to suggest that after being granted bail, at any point of time the conduct of the petitioner was such which justified cancellation of bail and in these circumstances, the impugned order dated 12.03.2012 by learned ASJ be quashed.