AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1804
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....counsel for the parties. 2. Leave granted in both petitions. THE IMPUGNED ORDER: 3. These twin appeals are directed against the common Impugned Final Order dated 18.11.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'High Court') in Crl. M. C. Nos. 8956/2024 and 8957/2024 by which the petitions filed by the appellant against the Order dated 16.08.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ)-2/Special Judge (NDPS), East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Sessions Judge'), upholding the grant of bail to the (respective) respondents no.2-accused and his co-accused wife by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts, East District, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'ACMM'), were dismissed by the High Court. 4. The appellant is the complainant in Complaint Case No.4142/2017 filed before the ACMM. APPELLANT'S SUBMISSIONS: 5. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the accusation against the accused husband and his co-accused wife was that they had taken Rs.1,90,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Ninety Lakhs) and promised to trans....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll ask to be granted bail on the ground that now charge-sheet has been filed and his custody is not required. In this regard, this Court is of the opinion that it would rather amount to giving liberty to an accused to first mislead the Courts by giving an undertaking that payment will be made & thereafter, despite such undertaking for years, as in the present case for more than three years, accused(s), in the meanwhile will wait for the charge-sheet to be filed and enjoy the interim protection and after the charge-sheet is filed, will take a plea that now they are no more required to be sent to judicial custody. This situation will amount to travesty of justice, and taking the court and complainant for a ride. 12. The present case involves cheating of more than Six Crores by the complainant and this is not the only FIR involving such kind of offence which is pending against the petitioners, but another FIR bearing No. 238/2017 with similar allegations is pending against the petitioners, registered at Police Station Preet Vihar, Delhi for the offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC which shows the previous antecedents of the petitioners. 13. Considering the sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid Court. 10. It was further submitted that the bail granted is unsustainable not only due to their conduct, as taken note of in the Order dated 01.02.2023 supra, but also in view of the fact that several other cases of similar nature are pending against them, numbering more than half a dozen. In the above view, it was prayed that the appeals be allowed and the bail granted to the private respondents be set aside. RESPONDENT NO.1-NCT OF DELHI'S SUBMISSIONS: 11. Learned Additional Solicitor General appeared for the respondent-National Capital Territory of Delhi and supported the appellant's submissions. It was highlighted that the accused are habitual offenders and have been repeatedly indulging in fraudulent activities, especially of the type involved herein. It was pointed out that in two cases, the accused have already been convicted, and as on date, there are six other cases of similar nature pending against them. It was further submitted that the approach adopted by the ACMM, the Sessions Judge and the High Court, with respect, in the matters, was erroneous, as the grant of bail was based on considerations applicable to cases where conduct of the accused is otherwise ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. xxx 46. We are conscious of the fact that the accused are charged with economic offences of huge magnitude. We are also conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardise the economy of the country. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the investigating agency has already completed investigation and the charge-sheet is already filed before the Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi. Therefore, their presence in the custody may not be necessary for further investigation. We are of the view that the appellants are entitled to the grant of bail pending trial on stringent conditions in order to ally the apprehension expressed by CBI.' (emphasis supplied by learned senior counsel for the accused) 14. He further submitted that the conduct of the accused cannot be faulted, as they were merely availing legal remedies available to any citizen, which, in itself, cannot be construed as misconduct. He summed up arguments by submitting that the appellant does not merit indulgence, and therefore, the prayers made in the present cases ought to be rejected in toto....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r and would pay an amount, as might be determined in mediation. However, despite the lapse of close to four years, no fruitful result emerged from the mediation process, and in the end, after the Chargesheet was submitted, the anticipatory bail applications were dismissed. After 09.04.2019, the interim orders were specifically continued, by Orders dated 31.07.2019, 31.01.2020 and 11.10.2022. 19. We note that the Order dated 01.02.2023 dismissing the anticipatory bail applications detailed the conduct of the accused and thereafter, considered and dismissed the said petitions on merits. We find the reasoning employed in Order dated 01.02.2023, as recorded by us above, is fully justified in the facts and circumstances. In this backdrop, the ACMM, despite being made aware of the High Court's Order dated 01.02.2023 and even noting the same, proceeded on the simplistic premise that since the Chargesheet had been submitted, no useful purpose would be served by taking the accused into custody, particularly as the stand taken by the IO was that custodial interrogation was not required. Such reasoning, in our view, is untenable, inasmuch as the same glossed over the private respondents' c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the bail applications afresh.' (emphasis supplied) 22. Without becoming verbose, we would like to refer to two recent pronouncements of this Court i.e., Ashok Dhankad v State of NCT of Delhi, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1690 (delivered on 13.08.2025) and State of Karnataka v Sri Darshan, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1702 (delivered on 14.08.2025). In Ashok Dhankad (supra), it was stated thus: '19. The principles which emerge as a result of the above discussion are as follows: (i) An appeal against grant of bail cannot be considered to be on the same footing as an application for cancellation of bail; (ii) The Court concerned must not venture into a threadbare analysis of the evidence adduced by prosecution. The merits of such evidence must not be adjudicated at the stage of bail; (iii) An order granting bail must reflect application of mind and assessment of the relevant factors for grant of bail that have been elucidated by this Court. [See: Y v. State of Rajasthan (Supra) [(2022) 9 SCC 269] ; Jaibunisha v. Meherban [(2022) 5 SCC 465] and Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar @ Deepu [(2023) 13 SCC 549] ] (iv) An appeal against grant of bail may be enterta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he witnesses. In the present case as per the contents of the chargesheet, no further investigation is pending. There are no circumstances indicated on behalf of the complainant or the State which may give rise to even a slightest apprehension that the accused persons are likely to abscond or not join the trial proceedings before the Court. Further, no such material or evidence has been pointed out on behalf of the complainant or the APP or the I.O. that may be tampered or destroyed by the accused persons during the trial proceedings. It is important to mention here that from the time of registration of the FIR till date, there has been no such complaint made by the complainant that he or any other witness in this case had been threatened by the accused persons or any attempt had been made by the accused persons to influence the complainant or other persons acquainted with the facts of this case. 9. The role of both the accused persons in the alleged incident of cheating has been clearly delineated in the chargesheet. The Court is not oblivious to the fact that the complainant has been cheated of a huge amount running in crores, however, that solely cannot be a reason for t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar Dhir v. State of Punjab [Vipan Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab, (2021) 15 SCC 518], taking note of Dolat Ram [Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349: 1995 SCC (Cri) 237] and X v. State of Telangana [X v. State of Telangana, (2018) 16 SCC 511: (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 902], the Court cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to the accused therein. Keeping all the aforesaid in mind, we turn our attention to the facts in praesenti.' (emphasis supplied) [Reiterated by another 3-Judge Bench in Order dated 22.11.2023 in SLP (Crl.) 4496/2023.] 27. The Sessions Judge's Order dated 16.08.2024, impugned before the High Court, took note of a judgment passed by a learned Division Bench of the High Court in Court on its Own Motion v State, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12306, the relevant paragraph wherefrom reads as under: '37. While considering the regular bail application of the accused under Section 437(1) Cr PC, the factum of the rejection or acceptance of the anticipatory bail application, by itself, is not germane. However, the factors which weighed with the court while either rejecting or granting anticipatory bail to the accused, or such of them - as are relevant post the filin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns have violated any of the conditions of bail.', fell in error by looking to uphold the ACMM's Order dated 10.11.2023 by examining the post-bail conduct of the accused rather than testing whether the Order dated 10.11.2023 by itself commended acceptance or not. Nothing further need be said. 30. The manner in which bail was granted also reveals certain procedural irregularities at the grassroots level of the judiciary, which we should not ignore. Cognizance was taken by the ACMM vide Order dated 28.03.2023 (12.20 pm) and summons were issued to the accused. On 09.08.2023, the accused sought, and were granted time to file bail applications. accused duo, it is stated, appeared before the ACMM on 18.10.2023 with pleas for grant of bail. Thus, technically, once the bail applications were taken up for hearing and the accused had appeared before the Court, they were deemed to be in the custody of the Court concerned, unless a specific order was passed directing their release - either on regular basis or in the interim. In the present circumstances, it is not disputed that no such interim release order was passed, yet the private respondents were not taken into custody. Orders were subs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngle Judge by the appellant for the matters to be referred to the same learned Judge who had earlier rejected the anticipatory bail applications. The Court was well within its rights to reject such prayer, and none could have questioned such rejection, as it lay squarely within the discretion of the Court to proceed with the matter, if otherwise, there were no genuine and compelling reasons warranting a different course of action. However, the rejection of such a plea on the ground that the said learned Judge's roster had changed and, on that date, was sitting in a Division Bench appears misplaced. For proper appreciation, we may reproduce the said part of the Impugned Order: '21. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitions be transferred to the same Judge who had dismissed the bail applications filed by the respective Respondent Nos. 2 in the present petitions on an earlier occasion. 22. The roster of the predecessor Judge has been changed. The Hon'ble Judge is today sitting in a Division Bench. 23. Considering the above, this Court does not consider it apposite to accede to the request made by the learned couns....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly, it may lead to disruption of benches inasmuch as the learned judge who had initially heard the bail application of one of the accused, may have become a part of some Division Bench when a bail application arising out of the same FIR is filed by another accused. 10. We, therefore, clarify that if in a particular High Court, the bail applications are assigned to different single Judge/Bench, in that event, all the applications arising out of same FIR should be placed before one learned Judge. 11. This would ensure that there is a consistency in the views taken by the learned judge in different bail applications arising out of the same FIR. 12. However, if on account of change of the roster, the learned judge who was earlier dealing with the bail matters is not taking up the bail matters, the aforesaid directions would not be applicable. 13. Further, we expect that in order to maintain consistency in the views taken by the Court, the learned judge, who will hear the subsequent applications filed for bail, may give due weightage to the views taken by the earlier judge, who had dealt with the bail applications arising out of the same FIR. ....