Court No. - 70
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16331 of 2019
Applicant :- Sandeep Garg
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Vajpeyi,Syed Imran Ibrahim
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State/opposite party no.1 and perused the record with the assistance of leaned counsel for the parties.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to direct the court concerned to release the applicant on bail after furnishing fresh bail bonds to the satisfaction of court concerned under newly added section 411 IPC in Case Crime No. 319 of 2017, under sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and section 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Act, 1978, Police Station, Kavi Nagar, District - Ghaziabad.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that on 02.03.2017 impugned FIR was lodged as case crime no. 319 of 2017, under Section 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120 IPC and section 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Act, 1978, Police Station, Kavi Nagar, District - Ghaziabad against the applicant. Charge sheet dated 07.05.2018 has been submitted under sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and section 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Act, 1978 against the applicant. In the aforesaid case, the applicant has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 22.06.2018 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 22821 of 2018.
It is next submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the Investigating Officer on 03.08.2018 has submitted a supplementary charge sheet against the applicant for the offence under section 411 IPC in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 6, Ghaziabad.
Lastly, it is submitted that since the applicant has already been granted bail in same case crime number under major sections, therefore, liberty should be given to applicant to furnish fresh bail bonds under newly added section, which is minor offence than earlier offences, in which applicant has been granted bail, therefore no useful purpose would be served in sending the applicant in jail again. Under the circumstances suitable direction may be issued to the court concerned to permit the applicant to remain on bail on furnishing fresh bail bonds by the applicant to the satisfaction of the court concerned. Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance upon the judgement of this Court in the case of Raj Kumar and Ors. Vs. state of U.P. and Ors. 2005 Cri LJ 1378, Omwati and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. 2008 (1) ACR 45 and judgement of High Court of Punjab And Haryana in Sonu alias Rinku alias Lambu Vs. State of Punjab, 2011 Cri LJ 2068.
Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State opposed the prayer of the applicant and submitted that there is no statutory provision under Code of Criminal Procedure for permitting the accused to remain on bail under the newly added section only on furnishing fresh bail bonds or on same bail bonds. He has placed reliance upon the judgement of the Apex Court in case of Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs. N.C.T., Delhi and another, 2001 (42) ACC 903.
Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I find that the Apex Court in case of Prahlad Singh Bhati (supra) has held that with the change nature of the offence, the accused becomes disentitled to liberty granted to him or her in relation to minor offence, if the offence is altered for an aggravated crime. The Apex Court further held that in such case, the accused shall apply the regular bail before the concerned trial court and the same shall be decided and disposed of on its merit keeping in view the proposition of law as laid down in the said judgment.
Here, facts of this case is different from the fact of the case of Prahlad Singh Bhati (supra). In the present case in hand, the maximum punishment for the offences, in which applicant has already been granted bail, is imprisonment for ten years and the maximum punishment under newly added section 411 IPC is upto three years. In view of above, I find that since by newly added section nature of offence is not aggravated from minor offence to major offence, therefore under the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court feels that interest of justice would be served, if applicant is permitted to move an application before the court concerned for seeking appropriate relief.
In view of above, the present application under section 482, Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of with the observations that if the accused applicant appears before the court concerned within 30 days and moves an application raising his grievance with regard to the offence under newly added section 411 IPC, the court concerned shall pass suitable order on the application of the applicant in accordance with law.
For a period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the above mentioned case.
Order Date :- 29.4.2019 Sumaira