Not Surrendering On Time When Granted Bail Last Year Cannot Be Reason To Deny Interim Bail Under HPC Guidelines: Delhi High Court

Full Bench of the Delhi High Court has observed that an applicant not surrendering on time when bail was granted last year cannot be a reason to deny interim bail under the High Powered Committee guidelines.

A full bench comprising of Justice Vipin Sanghi, Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Talwant Singh was also dealing with applications filed by various applicants seeking interim bail.

"In our view, the consideration of the applicant not surrendering on time, when he was granted bail last year, cannot be a reason to deny him interim bail," the bench said while dealing with one of the applications.

The applicant was seeking interim bail in an FIR registered under sec. 302 and 34 of IPC on the basis of the orders passed in the present suo-moto proceedings.

The applicant was released on interim bail on account of the demise of his mother vide order dated 12.06.2021 passed in his bail Application. He was then required to surrender before the Jail Superintendent on 26.06.2021. However, since his regular bail application was also pending and was listed on 21.06.2021, the Court observed that order granting interim bail was subject to orders that may be passed in the pending bail plea.

After the matter got adjourned on various occasions, on 15.07.2021 his bail plea was dismissed as withdrawn since the Single Judge, according to the applicant, was not inclined to grant regular bail.

 It was thus the case of the applicant that since interim bail was granted on 12.06.2021, he was entitled to remain on interim bail and should not have been asked to surrender.

On the other hand, Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur appearing for the complainant submitted that the purpose of previous order passed by the Full Bench is not to continue interim bail of a person whose regular bail application is rejected.

Moreover, it was submitted that in various cases, that in several matters, bails granted by Single Judges were being granted on the condition that the applicant would not seek to take the benefit of the orders passed in these proceedings.

"We may also observe that in the light of the orders passed by the Full Bench, it would not be appropriate for any Court to put a condition while granting interim bail to an applicant, that he/ she should not seek to take benefit of the orders passed by the Full Bench," the Court observed.

It added:

"In cases where the Court, on prima-facie appreciation of facts of the case, he is not inclined to release the accused/ convict on interim bail, it is open to the Court to send the applicant in custody to attend ceremonies, or events such as death, marriage, etc."

Accordingly, the application was disposed of by the Bench by directing applicant to be released on interim bail on the same terms & conditions on which he was initially granted interim bail. 

The order was passed while dealing with the suo moto petition registered on the extension of interim orders in all matters pending before it and subordinate Courts, in view of the limited functioning of Courts due to the second Covid wave. (In Re: Extension of Interim Orders).

Earlier, the Court had extended the life of it's interim orders till September 24.

The Supreme Court had ordered that all prisoners who have been released by the High Powered Committees of states in the wake of COVID pandemic pursuant to the May 7 order in the suo motu case should not be asked to surrender until further orders.

Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)

Click Here To Read Order