Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1633 (DEL)

RAJEEV KUMAR VERMA v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

2006-09-13

A.K.SIKRI

body2006
A. K. SIKRI, J. ( 1 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners were wanted in the fir registered against them with the Police station Raipurva, Kanpur (UP ). The police from the said Police Station came to Delhi to arrest the petitioners and sought transit remand. However, the learned ACMM, New delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Delhi court') refused to give the transit remand and granted bail to the petitioners vide order dated 18. 4. 2006 with a direction to the petitioners to appear before the learned court of competent jurisdiction within a period of 15 days. Since the petitioners did not appear within the stipulated period, though they were seeking some other remedies, the Delhi Court has issued non-bailable warrants against the petitioners, thereafter initiated process under section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and has declared the petitioners as proclaimed offenders. This order is challenged primarily on two counts: (i) after granting bail, the court in Delhi became functus officio and for non-appearance of the petitioners before the court of competent jurisdiction in Kanpur, it is only the court at Kanpur which could have taken appropriate steps of this nature; and (ii) in any case the petitioners surrendered before the court at Kanpur on 23. 8,2006 and have been released on bail by the orders of Court of Sessions Judge, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Kanpur Court' ). ( 2 ) FEW background facts may be noted to appreciate the aforesaid submissions. The petitioners were arrested by the UP Police on 17. 4. 2006 and were produced before the delhi Court for transit remand on 18. 4. 2006, when the bail was granted to the petitioners with a direction to appear before the court of competent jurisdiction, within a period of 15 days. The petitioners were released on bail on 19. 4. 2006. They did not appear before the court of competent jurisdiction within the stipulated period of 15 days, instead they moved writ petition in the High Court of judicature at Allahabad, which was dismissed. They, thereafter, even filed a Special Leave petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court of India. That SLP was also dismissed and they were directed to surrender before the trial court. In these circumstances, the petitioners surrendered before the Kanpur Court on 23. 8. 2006 and were taken into custody. They, thereafter, even filed a Special Leave petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court of India. That SLP was also dismissed and they were directed to surrender before the trial court. In these circumstances, the petitioners surrendered before the Kanpur Court on 23. 8. 2006 and were taken into custody. They applied for bail and ultimately the Kanpur court granted bail vide its order dated 26. 8. 2006 whereafter the petitioners were released from jail. ( 3 ) IN the meantime, the Delhi Court took note of the fact that the petitioners had not appeared/surrendered before the Kanpur court within 15 days of the transit bail granted by it vide order dated 18. 4. 2006 and notice was issued to the petitioners herein. As this notice could not be served to the petitioners or their counsel, who appeared in the Delhi court, vide order dated 30. 5. 2006, non- bailable warrants were issued against the petitioners and notice was also issued to the sureties for 15. 6. 2006. The non-bailable warrants issued by the Delhi Court were received back with the report that the petitioners were not residing at the given address. Surety was, however, served and the Court passed the following order on that date:- "the record reveals that the Surety has been validly served. Ms. Ranjana Lamba w/o the surety is present in the court. She state (sic) that she has tried her best to contact the accused but she is unable to contact them. She states that her husband is out of station and she could not get in touch with the accused. Meanwhile the counsel Sh. Rajiv Avasti has made a request that the Coercive process issued against the accused should be with held for one week during which period they will appear before the concerned court since at the moment the accused persons are exploring further legal remedies. The perusal of the record reveals that both the accused have misused and abused the liberty so granted to them by not reporting to the court at khanpur as directed. In view of the above this court is not inclined to interfere at the moment. The perusal of the record reveals that both the accused have misused and abused the liberty so granted to them by not reporting to the court at khanpur as directed. In view of the above this court is not inclined to interfere at the moment. Keeping in view the report on the NBWs is apparent that the accused are evading arrest, Issue process u/s 82 Crpc against both the accused for 17/7/06 mean while the surety is directed to produce the accused before this court within a period of 15 days from today or deposit the surety amount failing which warrant of attachment of property be issued against the sureties of both the accused. " ( 4 ) ON 17. 7. 2006, surety bond was forfeited and warrants of attachment of property of the surety to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- were also issued. Statement of the process server under Section 82 Cr. P. C. was recorded and vide order dated 18. 8. 2006, the petitioners were declared proclaimed offenders. ( 5 ) DETAILED arguments were heard on the two contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. This petition warrants to be allowed on the second ground raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. As is noted above, the petitioner had ultimately appeared before the Kanpur Court and has already been granted regular bail. It is in view of the fact that the petitioner is participating in the proceedings before the court of competent jurisdiction, namely the Kanpur Court, and has been granted regular bail; there is no reason to keep the order issuing non-bailable warrants passed by the Delhi Court in operation inasmuch as the petitioner cannot be arrested by the Delhi Court when it is the kanpur Court which is competent to try the offence and has granted bail to the petitioner. Order dated 30. 5. 2006 passed by the Delhi court issuing non-bailable warrants against the petitioner and also orders dated 15. 6. 2006 and 17. 7. 2006 initiating process under section 82 Cr. P. C. and attaching the property of surety are hereby quashed. The question of law regarding the jurisdiction of Delhi Court to pass such orders is however not decided and is left open. Petition and the applications are disposed of.