Rohit Mehta vs. Superintendent (Preventive)

Facts

The petitioner, Rohit Mehta, filed the present petition seeking regular bail. He had previously filed Criminal Revision No. 60 of 2022, in which he was granted conditional release by way of default bail through an order dated March 9, 2022. The petitioner's counsel submitted that since the petitioner had already been conditionally released, the present petition for regular bail no longer survived. He requested permission to withdraw the current petition in light of the earlier order.

Held

The Court noted the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had been conditionally released by way of default bail in Criminal Revision No. 60 of 2022 vide an order dated March 9, 2022. Consequently, the petitioner's counsel argued that the present petition for regular bail did not survive. The Court accepted this submission and permitted the petitioner to withdraw the present petition. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn at this stage. No specific issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present petition for regular bail survives when the petitioner has already been granted conditional release by way of default bail in a related criminal revision petition. Contentions of the Petitioner: The petitioner argued that the present petition for regular bail has become infructuous and does not survive because he has already been granted conditional release through an order dated March 9, 2022, in Criminal Revision No. 60 of 2022. Therefore, he sought permission to withdraw the present petition. Contentions of the Respondent: The judgment records no specific argument from the respondent, the Superintendent (Preventive), Central Goods & Services Tax, GST.