RISHAB GUPTA Vs. STATE & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the basis of report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) submitted on conclusion of investigation into FIR No. 219/2014 of police station Amar Colony involving offences punishable under Sections 420/467/468/471/120B/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), the second respondent (accused) is facing trial in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, the gravamen whereof in a nutshell is that he had purportedly sold to the petitioner (the complainant of the case) certain parcel of land, for consideration, receiving in the process Rs. 2.10 crore directly or indirectly, the later revelations showing the land did not vest in him, it rather belonging to Delhi Development Authority (DDA).

(2.) It appears that the second respondent (accused) had earlier been arrested and was released on interim bail. He, however, jumped bail and eventually came to be declared a proclaimed offender after publication under Section 82 Cr.P.C. After his presence had been secured, a supplementary charge-sheet was laid in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate leading to the trial. He had earlier applied for bail before this Court by moving bail application no. 919/2016, which was however, withdrawn and dismissed accordingly by order dated 19.07.2016, he having taken the liberty to approach the trial court/Sessions Court instead. He approached the Metropolitan Magistrate by bail application which was dismissed by order dated 23.03.2016. He then moved the court of Sessions by bail application (CF 1399/2016) which was dismissed by a detailed reasoned order dated 18.04.2016 taking note, inter alia, of the dismissal of the earlier bail application and the past conduct. After the dismissal of his bail application by the court of Sessions he moved yet another application before the same Magistrate. This fresh application was allowed by a very cryptic order dated 11.08.2016:-

(3.) Challenging the above mentioned order and seeking cancellation of the bail, invoking the jurisdiction under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C., the complainant of the case has approached this court by the petition at hand. It has been, inter alia, pointed out that the impugned order dated 11.08.2016 not only suffers from the vice of it being cryptic but also that it omits reference to any of the incriminating facts nor takes note of the gravity of the offences involved, failing conspicuously to take into account the objection of the State that the petitioner is involved in a series of such crimes, his role having come to light (by then) in at least three other such cases, their particulars (as given in the status report dated 07.10.2016) being case FIR No. 146/12 under Sections 420/465/468/471/474 IPC, PS Pandav Nagar, Delhi; case FIR No. 20/14, under Sections 406/420/506 IPC, PS Kotwali Nai Mandi, Mujaffarnagar, UP; and case FIR No. 87/15 under Sections 420/468/471/120-B IPC, PS C.R. Park, New Delhi. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is yet another case in which the accused is involved it being FIR 3/2017 police station EOW involving offences under Sections 406/120B/34/420 IPC.