JAIVIR SHARMA Vs. D.N. TANEJA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying inter alia for cancellation of the bail granted to the respondent No. 1 vide order dated 05.03.2013 passed by the learned ASJ in case FIR No. 76/2012 under Sections 376/354/328/342/506/34 IPC registered at Police Station: Barakhamba Road. The petitioner also seeks quashing of the order dated 30.05.2013 passed by the learned ASJ, rejecting his application for cancellation of the respondent No. 1's bail. At the outset, Mr. Andley, Senior Advocate for the petitioner has been requested to address the Court on the locus standi of the petitioner to file the present petition when he is admittedly not related to the prosecutrix in any manner and nor has he been engaged by the prosecutrix as a counsel in the present FIR. Counsel for the petitioner responds by stating that the petitioner is a practicing advocate and he relies upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of R. Rathinam vs. the State and Anr. reported as : AIR 2000 SC 1851 to contend that an application for cancellation of bail is maintainable by any member of the public and that the High Court can take suo moto notice of such a complaint and pass appropriate orders if it is satisfied on the merits of the case.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner states that the impugned order dated 05.03.2013 granting anticipatory bail to the respondent No. 1 deserves interference for the reason that when arguments were being addressed on the application filed by the respondent No. 1 for grant of anticipatory bail, the court below was not properly assisted by the Investigating Officer and further, at that time, the trial court had not been apprised of the judgment of the High Court dated 18.02.2013 passed in Crl. MC 552/2013 filed by the respondent No. 1 herein praying inter alia for setting aside of the order dated 17.12.2012 passed by the learned ASJ, who had upheld the order dated 17.11.2012 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate summoning him in the FIR, and for quashing of the aforesaid FIR. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No. 1 is a very influential person and has high contacts and it is likely that he will tamper with the evidence and influence the prosecutrix to depose in his favour and therefore, the bail that has been granted to him, ought to be cancelled.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order of summoning passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, the respondent No. 1 had preferred a criminal revision petition before the learned ASJ, which was dismissed on 17.12.2012. The aforesaid order dated 17.12.2012 passed by the learned ASJ was assailed by the respondent No. 1 before the High Court by filing a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. registered as Crl. M.C. 552/2013. The said petition was dismissed as being devoid of merits vide judgment dated 18.02.2013. While passing the aforesaid judgment, the Court had also made some observations with regard to the manner in which the investigation had been conducted in the present case. Aggrieved by the aforesaid adverse observations made by the High Court, respondent No. 1 had preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court and though the order passed by the Supreme Court has not been placed on record, learned counsel for the petitioner informs the Court that the Supreme Court had directed that the observations made by the High Court in the order dated 18.02.2013 shall not be taken note of by the courts below at any stage of the proceedings. Learned Addl. PP states that after the aforesaid revision petition filed by the respondent No. 1 was dismissed, the Investigating Officer had continued with the investigation and the charge -sheet is likely to be filed in the very near future.