17 June 2024


High Court of Delhi

Shakuntala Devi Golyan Vs. State NCT of Delhi and Ors.




When bail is granted, an appellate Court must be very slow to interfere

The present petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) is directed against the order whereby the learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide the order impugned herein granted bail to the Respondent No. 2 and 3 and also granted exemption to the other accused for not appearing. It is this order which is under challenge in the instant petition.

The Petitioner argues that, after cognizance has been taken, there was no reason for the accused not to appear before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that, there are serious allegations against the Respondent No. 2 and 3 and other accused persons. He submits that, the offences are very serious in nature and the Court cannot grant bail to the accused for their asking.

A perusal of the facts shows that, this is primarily a builder buyer dispute. The Petitioner has already filed a complaint against the accused with the NCDRC for refund of the amount. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate while passing the impugned order has observed that, no custodial interrogation of the accused is required. In matters of grant of bail under Section 437 of CrPC, the Magistrate has been given an undoubted discretion in the matter and the discretion has to be judicially exercised by him. Once the Magistrate has exercised his discretion, it is not for the High Court to substitute its own discretion to that of the Magistrate or to examine the case on merits with a view to find out whether or not the allegations in the complaint, if proved, would ultimately end in conviction of the accused.

The learned Metropolitan Magistrate while considering the petition was justified in holding that, the question as to whether the accused persons had dishonest intention right at the time of entering into agreement with the complainant/petitioner herein or not is a matter of trial. The counsel for the accused persons had stated that, the building is complete and the Petitioner herein has not made more than 50% of the payment of the property. No material has been produced before this Court to show that the accused, who had been granted bail by the order impugned herein, have criminal antecedents or that they would flee from justice. It cannot be said that, the order impugned herein suffers from non-application of mind. It is trite law that, when bail is granted, an appellate Court must be very slow to interfere and when it is found that there is proper application of mind by the Court below in granting bail then the superior Court should not interfere with such orders. No interference is called for. Petition dismissed.

Tags : Bail Grant Legality

Share :