SANDEEP KOHLI Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed for anticipatory bail. This case has got chequered history petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. which was listed as Cr1. Writ No. 288/94. In the said writ petition on 19-4-1994 the Division Bench of this Court stayed the arrest of the petitioners. Thereafter on 13-2-1995 the ex-parte interim order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 19-4-1994 was vacated. However, on 17-2-1995 again the petitioners were granted anticipatory bail in terms of the order dated 19-4-1994. Again on 13-3-1995 the Division Bench of this Court vacated the order dated 17-2-1995 granting anticipatory bail as well as the ex-parte order dated 19-4-1994. Thereafter the petitioners withdrew petition.

(2.) It seems that pursuant to the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the petitioners were arrested on 12-3-1995 and released on bail in view of the orders dated 17-2-1995. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has argued that as a matter of fact this petition is not maintainable as once the bail was granted to the petitioners, the petitioner have to file appropriate application in the Court concerned at the appropriate stage and this petition, as filed for anticipatory bail in view of the arrest and release of the petitioners, is not maintainable. In the alternative counsel for the petitioner has also argued that there was no bail order when the petitioners were released as the order granting bail was subsequently revoked by the Division Bench of this Court.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. P.S. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the State, has argued that pursuant to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the petitioners were released on bail, to that effect the letter of the office of Additional Commissioner of Police, Southern Range, No. 1131/Compt (SR), New Delhi dated 17-4-1995 addressed to the complainant has also been shown to this Court by the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 complainant, which also admits the position that the petitioners were arrested on 12-3-1995 and released on bail in view of the orders of the High Court dated 17-2-1995 in Cr1. Writ. No. 288/94.