Vikram Sibal v. State & Anr

ORDER %

23.05.2013 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. or Mr. RaghuTandon,counselappearingon behalfofrespondentNo. 2 in Crl. M.C. No. 495/2012seekstwo days timeto file his powerofattorney on record.Letthe samebe filedin atime spanofthe days. By the aforesaidthree petitions,petitioneris seekingdirectionsfor setting aside the order dated 12.12.2011 passed by Shri Rajeev Bansal, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Saket, in FIR No. 220/10. Since the prayer made in all the aforesaidpetitionsis common, therefore,all these petitionsare heardtogetherand arebeingdisposedoftogether. Mr. SanjeevK. Jha, arguingcounselfor the petitionersubmitsthatthe petitionerhad filed an applicationunder Section439(2) of the Cr.P.C. for cancellationof bail grantedto respondentNo. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioneralsosubmitsthatpetitionerfiledthe saidapplicationunderSection 439(2)ofthe Cr.P.C.andthe samewas postedfor hearingon 19^*"July2011 but on that date, the learnedPresidingOfficerwas on leave and as per the petitioner,he was informedby the courtstaff,thatthe matterwas adjourned to 21®' July 2011. Counselfor the petitioneralso submitsthatpetitionerhad reachedthe court on 2f' July 2011, where he was informedthat the said matterwas dismissedin defaulton 20^ July 2011. Learnedcounselfor the petitioner also submits that petitioner moved an application to seek ! restoration of the application but the restoration application too was dismissed on 2"^^ November 2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitsthat a fresh applicationwas moved by the petitionerunder Section 439(2)ofthe Cr.P.C.to seekcancellationofthe bail ofthe respondentNo. 2 and the said fresh applicationofthe petitionerwas takenup by Shri Rajeev Bansal,learnedAdditionalSessionsJudge on 7'^ December2011, when the learned presidingofficer took a view that the said applicationshould be listedbefore Ms.Raj Rani Mitra, who had earlierdismissedthe application moved by the petitioner to seek restoration of his earlier application. Accordingly,it was put up beforeRaj Rani Mitra on 12"^ December2011. On 12.12.2011,the Presiding Officer was on leave, therefore, Mr.Rajeev Bansal, learned ASJ, being a link judge to Ms.Raj Rani Mitra, without takingnote of the earlierorderdated 7.12.2011passedby him, took a view that the said applicationfiledby the petitioneris not maintainableinthe eyes of law as the appropriateremedy for petitioner was to move an application before the court of concerned ACMM. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that once the said presiding Judge Shri Rajeev Bansal, learned Additional Sessions Judge had taken a view that the said application of the petitioner should be GorisideredbyMs. Raj Rani Mitra,who had earlierdismissedthe restoration application of the petitioner, then he should have stayed his hands in decidingthe said applicationof the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel appearingfor respondentNo. 2 in the respectivecases. Withoutexpressingany view on the merits of the contentionsraised by the counselfor the petitionerin the presentpetitionand the contentions raised by learned counsel for the respondentNo.2 to oppose the present petition, this court is of the view that once Shri Rajeev Bansal, learned AdditionalSessionsJudgevide his orderdated1^^ December2011 hadtaken a view that the said application moved by the petitioner under Section 439(2)of Cr.P.C.shouldhavebeenconsideredby Ms.RajRaniMitra,onthe premisesthat the saidJudgehad dismissedthe restorationapplicationof the petitioner,he should not have decided the same on 12"' December, 2011 ^withouttakingnote ofhis previousorderdated7^^ December2011. No doubt, Shri Rajeev Bansal, learned Additional Sessions Judge was a link Judge of Ms. Raj Rani Mitra, who was on leave on that date, and he had the power to adjudicate the said application but this court is of the opinion that judicial discipline demands that he should have sent the matter back to the same court of Ms.Raj Rani Mitra for a later date. In any case, there was no urgencyto decidethe said applicationmovedby the petitioner as the same was only an applicationfor seeking cancellationof bail order passed by learnedAdditionalSessionsJudge. In the light of the aforesaidobservationsand in the interestofjustice, this court deems it fit to remand all these matters back to the court of Ms.Raj Rani Mitra, learned Additional Sessions Judge to decide the said application of the petitioner moved under Section 439(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure. It is ordered accordingly. It is made clear to both the parties that all the legal grounds shall be available to the respondent to urge before the concerned court. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Court of Ms. Raj Rani Mitra, learned Additional Sessions Judge on 4"^ June 2013 at 2 PM for further proceedings. With aforesaid directions, all the above captioned three petitions are disposed of KAILASH GAMBfflR, J MAY 23, 2013 pkb ' (9 V-

i $-9 to 11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + . CRL.M.C. 493/2012 VIKRAM SIBAL Petitioner Through: Mr.Sanjeev K.Jha, Advocate versus STATE & ANR. Respondent Through: Mr. Navin Sharma,AdditionalPublic Prosecutor for the State Mr.S.Tabrej, Advocate for respondent No. 2. + CRL.M.C. 494/2012 VIKRAM SIBAL Petitioner Through: Mr.Sanjeev K.Jha, Advocate versus STATE & ANR. Respondent Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State Mr.I.A.Alvi, Advocate for respondent No. 2. + CRL.M.C. 495/2012 VIKRAM SIBAL Petitioner Through: Mr.Sanjeev K.Jha, Advocate versus STATE & ANR. Respondent Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State Mr.Raghu Tandon, Advocate for respondent No. 2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR