Narendra Kumar Srivastava vs. State Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr.

Facts

The petitioner, a partner in M/s. Narendra Polypack Industries, filed a petition challenging an order dated August 5, 2024, passed by the learned Trial Court, which granted regular bail to Respondent No. 2 in FIR No. 366/2024. The FIR was registered on the petitioner's complaint for offences under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The allegations include stealing raw materials, selling them under waste scrap, and creating forged GST bills. Respondent No. 2 was the Mundka Factory In-charge. The petitioner argued that the investigation was incomplete, with multiple accused and a pending chargesheet against one co-accused. Respondent No. 2 was arrested on May 30, 2024, and granted bail by the impugned order.

Held

The Court held that the considerations for granting bail and for its cancellation are fundamentally different. Bail can only be cancelled if the accused has misused liberty, flouted conditions, the bail was granted in contravention of statutory provisions, or obtained through misrepresentation or fraud. None of these situations were present. The petitioner's argument that the investigation was still pending was noted, but the Court observed that the Trial Court had specifically asked the Investigating Officer for reasons to detain Respondent No. 2, and none were provided. The Court also noted that the filing of a chargesheet does not preclude further investigation or filing of a supplementary chargesheet, but this alone cannot be a ground for continued incarceration. Citing Deepak Yadav v. State of U.P., the Court emphasized that bail once granted should not be cancelled mechanically and requires cogent and overwhelming circumstances, which were not made out. The Court found no reason to interfere with the impugned order, as it was not the case that Respondent No. 2 had impeded justice post-bail, and at the pre-conviction stage, there is a presumption of innocence. The observations made were for the purpose of deciding the bail application and would not affect the merits of the trial.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Trial Court erred in admitting Respondent No. 2 to regular bail when the investigation was allegedly incomplete and chargesheet was yet to be filed against one co-accused, thereby potentially allowing other accused to seek bail on parity? (Section 120B, 420, 468, 471 IPC). Petitioner's arguments: The impugned order was passed erroneously by noting that the investigation was complete. There are multiple accused, and the investigation is still continuing. Other accused are seeking bail on the ground of parity. A chargesheet has not yet been filed against one of the accused persons. Respondents' arguments: Not recorded in the judgment.