CRL.M.A. 19280/2022 (for exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application is disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 4791/2022, CRL.M.A. 19279/2022 (for interim stay)

3. Heard learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Harpreet Singh, Sr. standing counsel for the investigating agency on advance notice.

4. The facts of the case show that the petitioner was granted bail vide order dated 17.02.2022 passed by the learned CMM/ND/Patiala House Courts. Various conditions were imposed by the court below which were to be complied with by the petitioner. Vide impugned order, the court below has noticed that there were disobedience/violations of the conditions imposed by the court.

5. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, submits that there was no deliberate disobedience of any of the conditions by the petitioner. On account of inadvertence for some time, the Google pin could not be dropped to the Investigating Officer to which learned senior counsel apologises of behalf of the petitioner and undertakes to do the same as directed by the concerned court. He further submits that so far as appearance of the petitioner before the investigating officer is concerned, he has been appearing on each date as and when he was called for, but certain information which was required by the Investigating Officer, the petitioner could not be able to produce, as they are related to some old documents for which the petitioner wanted some time. The leaned senior counsel, however, submits that if the entire impugned order is perused, the same would demonstrate that there is no serious violation attributed to the petitioner.

6. The learned senior standing counsel appearing for the Investigating Agency fairly states that once the petitioner is granted bail, there is no point to put him behind the bar unless there are serious violations at his end. He, however, submits that if the petitioner undertakes to cooperate and appear before the Investigation Officer, he would not have any objection in restoring his regular bail.

7. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioner was granted regular bail vide order dated 17.02.2022 and the impugned order relates to certain non-compliances of the terms and conditions to which the petitioner has given sufficient explanation. In addition, since the petitioner has already undertaken that he would appear before the Investigating Officer as and when he is called for and explain the reason if, at all, any document or information is not available to him, it would be up to the Investigating Officer after perusal or consideration of the explanation by the petitioner to form an opinion as to the whether the applicant is at all not cooperating with the investigation. If the Investigating Officer feels that the petitioner is not cooperating and violating any of the terms and conditions imposed by the court concerned, he is always at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail.

8. Under the aforesaid consideration, this court does not find it appropriate to sustain the impugned order and, therefore, the same is set aside.

9. The petitioner shall abide by the terms and conditions imposed by the original bail order on 17.02.2022.

10. The petition stands disposed of.