Shyam Garg vs. Union Of Idnia

Held

The Court held that the first bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. had become infructuous. This was based on the undisputed fact that the applicant had already been released on default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. The reasoning was that once an accused is released on default bail, the purpose of seeking bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for the same offense is extinguished. The ratio decidendi is that a bail application becomes infructuous if the applicant has already secured release through another legal provision, such as default bail. The Court dismissed the petition as infructuous. Additionally, the Court directed the Registrar General to investigate the delay in listing the bail petition.

Facts

The applicant, Shyam Garg, filed a first bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with a case registered under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), and 132(1)(k) of the CGST Act, 2017. The case was registered at the Police Station of the Principal Commissioner of CGST, Bhopal. The applicant's counsel and the respondent's counsel acknowledged that the applicant had since been released on default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. Consequently, the bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was rendered infructuous. The Court also directed the Registrar General to ascertain the reasons for the delay in listing the bail petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the first bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is maintainable when the applicant has already been granted default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. (Question of law, concerning the interplay of Sections 439 and 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.). Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that since default bail has been granted, the current bail application has become infructuous and therefore, cannot be pressed. The petitioner relied on the fact of their release on default bail as the basis for the application becoming infructuous. Revenue's Argument: The respondent (Union of India) did not dispute the fact that the applicant had been released on default bail. Their contention was implicitly that the application was no longer necessary or maintainable in light of this development.