Vinod Kumar Vs. State

Vinod Kumar vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Sep 26, 2003

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/703425

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/703425
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: S.K. Agarwal, J.
Decided On: Sep 26, 2003
Case Number: Crl.M.(M.) No. 3976 of 2003
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 438--Bail--Case under Sections 381/34, IPC--Stolen articles have already been recovered--Additional Sessions Judge dismissed bail application by a non-speaking order--While exercising jurisdiction under Section 438 or 439, Cr.P.C., the ASJ is required to give reasons while dis...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 438; Indian Panel Code, 1860 - Sections 34 and 381

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vinod Kumar

Advocate Krishan Kumar, Adv

Respondent

State

Advocate Anil Soni, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 438; Indian Panel Code, 1860 - Sections 34 and 381
Cases Referred: Puran v. Rambilas and Anr.
Reported In: 2004IAD(Delhi)137; 107(2003)DLT678; 2004(73)DRJ378

Excerpt

criminal procedure code, 1973 - section 438--bail--case under sections 381/34, ipc--stolen articles have already been recovered--additional sessions judge dismissed bail application by a non-speaking order--while exercising jurisdiction under section 438 or 439, cr.p.c., the asj is required to give reasons while disposing of the petition, showing application of mind--order which is subject to judicial review, has to be speaking order--order passed by additional judge, dismissing the bail application is non-speaking--order is set aside. - orders.k. agarwal, j.crl.m. no. 5381/2003:allowed, subject to all just exceptions.crl.m. (m.) no. 3976/2003 :1. by this petition under section 438 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 (for short 'cr.p.c.'), petitioner is seeking bail in case fir no. 293/2003, under sections 381/34, ipc, p.s. chandni chowk.2. learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner's younger brother, johny kumar, who was working with chhabra trading company, chandni chowk, delhi was arrested on the allegations that he was taking one saree at the time of leaving the premises; on interrogation, he gave some disclosure statement involving his brother, both of them were arrested and were granted bail; stolen articles have already been recovered; petitioner moved an application before learned additional sessions judge seeking pre-arrest bail. learned additional sessions judge dismissed bail application by a non-speaking order, which reads:'22.9.2003 present: counsel for the applicant. app for the state with i.o. heard. no ground to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. application is dismissed. 3. giving reasons for granting bail to accused is different from discussing merits or demerits. at the stage of granting bail, a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of merits of the case has not to be undertaken. this has to be avoided. however, while exercising jurisdiction under sections 438 or 439, cr.p.c, the additional sessions judge is required to give reasons while disposing of the petition, showing application of mind. it is needless to say that whatever may be constrains of time, the order which is subject to judicial review, has to be a speaking order. reference in this regard can be made to the supreme court decision in puran v. rambilas and anr., : 2001 crilj2566 .4. in this case, as noticed above, the order passed by learned additional sessions judge dismissing the bail application is non-speaking. in view of the same, order dated 22.9.2003 is hereby.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

S.K. Agarwal, J.

Crl.M. No. 5381/2003:

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Crl.M. (M.) No. 3976/2003 :

1. By this petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), petitioner is seeking bail in case FIR No. 293/2003, under Sections 381/34, IPC, P.S. Chandni Chowk.

2. Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner's younger brother, Johny Kumar, who was working with Chhabra Trading Company, Chandni Chowk, Delhi was arrested on the allegations that he was taking one saree at the time of leaving the premises; on interrogation, he gave some disclosure statement involving his brother, both of them were arrested and were granted bail; stolen articles have already been recovered; petitioner moved an application before learned Additional Sessions Judge seeking pre-arrest bail. Learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed bail application by a non-speaking order, which reads:

'22.9.2003

Present: Counsel for the applicant.

APP for the State with I.O.

Heard. No ground to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Application is dismissed.

3. Giving reasons for granting bail to accused is different from discussing merits or demerits. At the stage of granting bail, a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of merits of the case has not to be undertaken. This has to be avoided. However, while exercising jurisdiction under Sections 438 or 439, Cr.P.C, the Additional Sessions Judge is required to give reasons while disposing of the petition, showing application of mind. It is needless to say that whatever may be constrains of time, the order which is subject to judicial review, has to be a speaking order. Reference in this regard can be made to the Supreme Court decision in Puran v. Rambilas and Anr., : 2001 CriLJ2566 .

4. In this case, as noticed above, the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the bail application is non-speaking. In view of the same, order dated 22.9.2003 is hereby set aside.

5. Petitioner is directed to approach the Additional Sessions Judge within three days. In the event of petitioner's bail application being declined, he be granted 7 days' time to seek appropriate relief in accordance with law. The petitioner be not arrested in this case till then.

Petition stands disposed of. dusty.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2003 Same Parties Vinod Kumar vs State Same Subject Criminal Same Judge S.K. Agarwal, J. Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 438; Indi...

Criminal