R. L. Gupta ( 1 ) I propose to dispose of both these petitions bya common order. Cr M (M) 2800/92 is filed by four petitioners whereasthe second petition (Cr. M. (M) 2846/92) is filed by only two of them. Theseare tiled under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (Code forshort) and Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the first petition,the relief sought, is that the order dated 3. 9. 1992 of the learned M. M. forissuing processes under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code may be declarednull and void while in the second petition order for issue of non-bailablewarrants issued against them on 18. 8,92 is sought to be quashed, beingillegal and arbitrary as the petitioners were on bail and their bail had notbeen cancelled. ( 2 ) THE brief facts according to the story of the prosecution basedon the statement of Sh. Ved Parkash. injured (who subsequently died on8. 6. 92) are that at about 9. 45 a. m. on 29. 4. 1992 he was going from his housewith a Lota containing Lussi to his Baithak to meet his guests. When hereached near the house of Chander Pal petitioner, he found the petitionerslok Pal, Amrik Singh and Chander Pal emerging from the house of Chanderpal. They called him from behind. At first he stopped for a moment,but considering that there were bitter relations with them on account of aland dispute and sensing their ill intentions, he started running. Theyfollowed him. When lie w. is in front of the Baithak of Sultan Singh, thepetitioner Prem Kumar alias Kaira alias Pehlwan and Vikram also camethere. Ved Parkash hurriedly entered the room. From behind Lok Paland Amrik Singh also entered. Lok Pal petitioner caught hold of himwhile petitioner Amrik Singh after taking out a revolver from his rightdhab fired at him. He received bullet injuries on his neck and immediatelyfell down. Other persons also came in. Sultan Singh who was there andtried to save him was also given injuries. He further stated that Chanderpal, Kaira alias Prem Kumar petitioners and Vikram were standing outside. On seeing the crowd collecting all of them ran away. The occurrence is alleged to have been witnessed by Rishi Pal and Saroj, who reachedthere on hearing him cry. Ved Parkash and Sultan Singh were got admittedin Jaipur Golden Hospital. Rohni. He further stated that Chanderpal, Kaira alias Prem Kumar petitioners and Vikram were standing outside. On seeing the crowd collecting all of them ran away. The occurrence is alleged to have been witnessed by Rishi Pal and Saroj, who reachedthere on hearing him cry. Ved Parkash and Sultan Singh were got admittedin Jaipur Golden Hospital. Rohni. Next day Ved Parkash was shiftedto Batra Hospital where he expired on 8. 6. 92 due to injuries receivedby him. So the case was converted from Section 307 Indian Penal Code to Section 302ipc. ( 3 ) I have heard arguments advanced by Mr. P. N, Lekhi, Sr. Advocate on behalf of the petitioners, Sh. P. P. Grover for Smt. Satya Devi wifeof the deceased Vcd Parkash and Sh. R. D. Jolly, Advocate on behalf of thestate. ( 4 ) IT appears that all the four petitioners describing themselves as residents of Mushtaque All Street, PS Park Sheet, Calcutta filed four separateapplications for anticipatory bail in the Court of learned Chief Judgecity Sessions Court, Calcutta. The applications of Amar Singh and Lok,pal petitioners were filed on 13. 5. 1992 while by the two remaining petitioners on 22. 5. 92. At that lime the case registered against the petitionerswas under Sections 307/452/34 Indian Penal Code in PS Mangol Pun, Delhi. It appearsthat at the time of hearing the petitions, PP was present in Court of learnedchief Judge. It was recorded that he did not oppose the petition andsince there was no other material before the learned Judge to reject thepetition and he was not inclined to reject is so no the facts and circumstancessubmitted on behalf of the petitioners, the petitions were allowed and itwas directed that in the event of their arrest, they will be released on furnishing personal bonds of Rs. 5,000. 00 with two sureties each of the like amount. However, certain conditions were imposed in respect of each petitionerwhich were as follows : (1) That the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required. (2) That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly, make anyinducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted withthe facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosingsuch facts to the Court or to any police officer. (2) That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly, make anyinducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted withthe facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosingsuch facts to the Court or to any police officer. (3) That the petitioner shall not, in any way, interfere with theinvestigations of the case, and (4) That the petitioner shall appear/surrender himself before theappropriate Court in connection with the relevant case, andreport compliance to his Court by 3. 7. 92. " ( 5 ) THE matter went to Calcutta High Court also when Smt. Satyawidow of Ved Parkash deceased gave. a telegram to the Registrar of thecalcutta High Court which was placed before the Hon ble Division Bench. It was pleased to pass the following orders on 22. 6. 199. : - "we have received a telegram from one Satya. widow of Vedprakash of Mangolpuri. Ved Prakash is allegedly the victim ina case of murder which took place in Delhi within the jurisdiction of Mangolpuri. Calling for the records pursuant to thetelegram we have found that the learned Chief Judge, City Session?court has granted anticipatory bail to this accused-petitionerwithout hearing the Delhi Police. The application for anticipatorybail was allowed on terms by the learned Chief Judge, Citysession Court, to the effect that in case the petitioner is arrestedhe is to he released on bail of Rs. 5. 000. 00 with one surety of thelike amount on condition to the effect that he should make himself available for interrogation by the 1. 0 as and when requiredand he shall not directly make any inducement, threat or promiseto any person acquainted with the facts of the case from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. He shall notin any way interfere with the investigation of the case and thathe shall appear/surrender himself before the appropriate Court indelhi in connection with the relevant case and report complianceto this Court bv 2. 7. 92. We call upon the learned Chief Judge. City Sessions Courts to apprise this Court whether any compliancehas been reported or not. We issue a Rule calling upon thepetitioner, Prem Kumar alias Kaira to show cause as to why theorder impugned dated 1. 6. 92 should not be set aside. Pendingthe hearing of this Rule we direct the petitioner to surrenderbefore the appropriate Court at Delhi and pray for appropriatereliefs. We issue a Rule calling upon thepetitioner, Prem Kumar alias Kaira to show cause as to why theorder impugned dated 1. 6. 92 should not be set aside. Pendingthe hearing of this Rule we direct the petitioner to surrenderbefore the appropriate Court at Delhi and pray for appropriatereliefs. Let this order be sent to the Officer-in-charge. Mangelpuri. Police Station. Delhi. Let this order be also sent to thelearned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court. Let this rule be servedon the accused-petitioner through the Chief Judicial Magistrate,calcutta. The Rule is made returnable two weeks hence. " ( 6 ) ON 14. 7. 1992 the Hon ble Division Bench passed the followingorder : "y. Dastoor appearing for O. P. in each of the four cases,submits before us that pursuant to the order passed by the Learnedchief Judge, City Sessions Court, the accused Opposite Parties who are the petitioners before the Learned Chief Judge, Citysessions Court, have surrendered in the Court below at Delhi andthey have been granted bail by the appropriate Court of competentjurisdiction. They wanted to submit a compliance report beforethe Learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court but since the recordsare before us, they could not do so. Let the records go back tothe learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court so as to accordcompliance report. We make it clear that if the accused Oppositeparties (who are the petitioners before the Learned Chief Judge,city Sessions Court) have already surrendered before the Courtof competent jurisdiction at Delhi, the present proceeding asinitiated by this Court, may be treated as dropped. This matteris treated as part heard by usand the matter is sent back to thelearned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court for compliance report. The photostat copies of the bail bond as submitted by Mr. Y. Dastoor, may be kept on record. Let the original records which we called for from the Chiefjudge, City Sessions Court be returned to the said Court forthwithfor making a proper report about the compliance of the order aspassed by the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court. Theyshould be sent back to this Court after compliance reports arefiled in the Court below, so as to enable us to pass appropriate orders in this regard. This order will govern all the fourcases. " ( 7 ) THE petition before the High Court was disposed off on 11. 8. 92. Theyshould be sent back to this Court after compliance reports arefiled in the Court below, so as to enable us to pass appropriate orders in this regard. This order will govern all the fourcases. " ( 7 ) THE petition before the High Court was disposed off on 11. 8. 92. A perusal of that order indicates that the High Court of Calcutta was givenan impression that petitioners had surrendered before the appropriatecourt at Delhi and, therefore they chose it fit to drop the proceedings basedon the order dated 14. 7. 1992. But they did observe in this order that thecalcutta City Sessions Court had no jurisdiction to intervene in the matterbecause of the refusal of anticipatory bail by the Delhi Court. It wasfurther observed that the petitioners took benefit of some Calcutta addresses to invoke the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court for the grant ofanticipatory bail and disapproved the order of City Sessions Judge withoutproper notice to Delhi Police. Mr. Jolly on behalf of the State informs thatthe address of Calcutta given by the petitioners before City Sessions Judge,calcutta is non-existent as verified by the I. O. of this case. ( 8 ) IT then appears that on 10. 6. 1992 the Investigating Officer appliedfor issue of NBWs against the petitioners before learned M. M. . Delhi. Thelearned Magistrate by order dated 11. 6. 92 issued NBWs to be executedon or before 30. 6. 1992. Petitioners Prem Kumar and Chander Pal filedapplications for anticipatory bail which were also dismissed as withdrawsin June, 1992. Copies of these applications along with orders have beenfiled on record (Crl. M. (M) 2846/92) by Shri P. P. Grover, Advocate. ( 9 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners Mr. Lekhi contended thatit did not matter that the case was later on converted under Section 302ipc from Section 307 etc. on the death of Ved Parkash. Once they wereallowed anticipatory bail by the Calcutta Court they would be deemed onsuch bail in the FIR registered in respect of the occurrence of this case. The second contention is that the period of 90 days having elapsed fromthe date of their surrender before the learned MM, Delhi on 30. 6. 92 andthey having remained in judicial custody for about six days could not bere-arrested now because period of more than 90 days had expired. The second contention is that the period of 90 days having elapsed fromthe date of their surrender before the learned MM, Delhi on 30. 6. 92 andthey having remained in judicial custody for about six days could not bere-arrested now because period of more than 90 days had expired. So faras the first contention is concerned, I am of the view that the order ofanticipatory bail will not enure to the benefft of the petitioners for manyreasons. First reason is that the offence was later on converted to Section302 Indian Penal Code on account of the death of Ved Parkash. The second reason isthat after the direction of the Calcutta High Court or even the Chief Judge,calcutta, petitioners did move anticipatory bail applications before thelearned Sessions Judge, Delhi and their petitions were dismissed as withdrawn. Even the Calcutta High Court withdrew the order of anticipatorybail for various reasons already mentioned. Therefore, practically therewas no order of anticipatory bail available to the petitioners even undersection 307 IPC. In the case of Chandra Prakash v. Mohan Lal, 1984 (2)Crimes 325, the Allahabad High Court took the view that if an accusedwas granted bail earlier by the Magistrate under Section 324 Indian Penal Code and lateron the charge sheet was filed under Section 307 IPC, and the bail wascancelled, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to grant bail to the accusedsecond time because of the conversion of the offence from 324 Indian Penal Code to 307ipc. I am in respectful agreement with the aforesaid observations. In thepresent case the circumstances are still worse for the petitioners. They areeven guilty of with-holding material information from this Court that theirapplications for grant of anticipatory bail were dismissed as withdrawn bythe learned ASJ, Delhi. It may also be noted that the anticipatory bailapplications on behalf of the petitioners were moved by the same Counseli. e. Sh. Nageshwar Pandey. Advocate who has now moved the presentpetition. They areeven guilty of with-holding material information from this Court that theirapplications for grant of anticipatory bail were dismissed as withdrawn bythe learned ASJ, Delhi. It may also be noted that the anticipatory bailapplications on behalf of the petitioners were moved by the same Counseli. e. Sh. Nageshwar Pandey. Advocate who has now moved the presentpetition. In the case of Baldev Singh v. Durga Prasad and Others, 1989 C. C. Cases 313 the question was, whether on the mere fact that in a fresh application for bail the material fact of previous bail application having beenrejectee on merits is concealed amounts to playing fraud on the Court oramounts to abuse of the process of the Court if bail is granted on suchapplication without coming to know about the previous application forgrant of bail having been dismissed on merits by the High Court or evenby the Sessions Court earlier. The question was answered in the affirmativeand in view of the fraud having been practiced on the Court, the bailwas ordered to be cancelled. In the present case also, there is no referencemade by the petitioners that they had withdrawn their applications forgrant of anticipatory bail. They are, therefore, guilty of practicing fraudalso on this Court and if this fact had been disclosed to the Court, theorder of issuance of NBWs against the petitioners probably would neverhave been stayed. In fact, I must deprecate the conduct of Mr. Pandey,advocate in concealing all these materials facts. It was he who was themoving spirit behind the petitioners in all Courts. This is rather unprofessional. He must realize that the nobility of such a good professiondoes not brook such wanton onslaughts to tarnish its image, ( 10 ) WHILE elaborating the contentions under Section 167 (2) of thecode, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners hadremained in judicial custody for about six days under the orders of thelearned Magistrate and thereafter they should be deemed to be in the custodyof the surety and if the total period of custody was thus counted, the petitioners have already been in custody for more than 90 days and, therefore,they were entitled to grant of bail as a matter of right. If they wereentitled to grant of bail as a matter of right, the argument further goes, therewas no question of allowing the orders of issue of non-bailable warrantsof arrest against them to remain alive. If they wereentitled to grant of bail as a matter of right, the argument further goes, therewas no question of allowing the orders of issue of non-bailable warrantsof arrest against them to remain alive. In fact, this argument also seemsto be without merit. First of all it may be noted that the petitionerswere not released on bail by the learned Magistrate. The order dated 4-8-92 (page 47-48 in Crl. M. (M) 2846/92) shows that it was made to appear to thelearned Magistrate on behalf of the petitioners that the matter was still underconsideration of the Calcutta High Court and that the cancellation of theirbail was beingconsidered by the High Court on the telegram of Satya Devi,wife of the deceased. Therefore, the learned Magistrate released the petitioners forthwith. This fact shows that the learned Magistrate did not releasethe petitioners on bail and, therefore, the concept of the extended custody ofthe petitioners with surety is not at all applicable. Even if that were so, thesurety is not supposed to keep an accused person under detention and hesimply makes himself liable to pay a certain amount by way of penalty incase the accused does not appear or the surety is not in a position to producehim. Section 167 of the Code contemplates only two types of custodies i. e. the police custody within the first 15 days of the production of the accusedbefore the Magistrate or judicial custody subsequently. Therefore, thisargument also has no merit. It may further be noted-that the fact that thepetitioners withdrew their anticipatory bail applications before Sessionscourt. Delhi was also not disclosed to the learned MM. The petitioners areguilty of taking Courts for a ride and such unbecoming conduct of their hasto be viewed very seriously. They have displayed scant regard for themajesty and rule of law. ( 11 ) NOW ultimately the position comes to this. The petitioners arenamed in the FIR by the deceased himself when he was still alive. Theorder of anticipatory bail granted under Section 307 Indian Penal Code to the petitioners bythe Chief Sessions Judge, Calcutta or even by the Hon ble High Court ofcalcutta has already been cancelled. Their anticipatory bail applicationswere dismissed as withdrawn before the learned ASJ, Delhi. The onlyalternative left was to detain them by issue of non-bailable warrants. Therefore, the issue of non-bailable warrants by the learned Magistrate is perfectlyin order. Their anticipatory bail applicationswere dismissed as withdrawn before the learned ASJ, Delhi. The onlyalternative left was to detain them by issue of non-bailable warrants. Therefore, the issue of non-bailable warrants by the learned Magistrate is perfectlyin order. It is also not disputed that the petition Cr. M. (M) 2800/92 standsor falls with the other petition. Therefore, both these petitions have nomerit and same are hereby dismissed. The petitioners are absent despiteorders of this Court to appear today. Therefore, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi is directed to issue non-bailable warrants of arrestagainst them, detain them in judicial custody and cause their productionbefore the area Metropolitan Magistrate for further proceedings accordingto law. The matter is already delayed. The police shall give top priorityto the investigation of this case.