Tag Archives: #delhi

Case Title: Navpreet Singh v. State 

Date of Decision: 1st September, 2023  

Case Number: Bail Appln. 1575/2023 

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Sharma 

 

Introduction 

 

Navpreet Singh filed a bail application under Section 439 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking regular bail in a case related to FIR No. 65/2018. The FIR was registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 406, 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B. The case was under the jurisdiction of the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of the Delhi Police.  

 

Factual Background 

 

The case involved a cash credit facility obtained by Sarabjeet Kaur, who mortgaged a property under a fake identity. Navpreet Singh, along with other co-accused, was alleged to have played a role in facilitating this fraud. Navpreet Singh was arrested on September 30, 2022, and the investigation was completed, with charges filed against him. The primary evidence against him was based on disclosure statements made by co-accused individuals. 

 

Legal Issues 

 

The primary legal issue in this case was whether Navpreet Singh should be granted regular bail given the allegations against him, which included forgery and financial fraud. The court needed to consider the seriousness of the charges, the evidence against the petitioner, and other relevant factors. 

 

Observation and Analysis 

 

The court noted that the charges against Navpreet Singh were related to economic offenses, and the gravity of these offenses varied from case to case. The court referred to previous Supreme Court judgments, emphasizing that bail is the rule, and refusal is the exception. It highlighted the need to consider the seriousness of the charges, the severity of punishment, and the facts of each case while deciding bail applications. The court also stressed the importance of preserving personal liberty and not punishing the accused before conviction. 

 

Key Points 

   

1. Related Cases: The judgment notes that the petitioner had previously filed two other bail applications in cases with similar allegations and charges (FIR No. 63/2018 and FIR No. 62/2018). The allegations in these cases were similar to those in the present case. 

   

2. Prosecution’s Case: The prosecution’s case, as per the status report authored by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Delhi, revolved around allegations of financial fraud. It was alleged that Sarabjeet Kaur, the proprietor of M/s Grace Handloom, had obtained a cash credit limit from a bank using fake documents and that the petitioner, Navpreet Singh, played a role in facilitating this fraud. The investigation revealed that forged documents were used to secure the loan. 

   

3. Role of the Petitioner: The status report outlined the specific role attributed to the petitioner. He was accused of being involved in forging a Conveyance Deed and taking the signatures of the borrower, Sarabjeet Kaur, on loan documents. It was also alleged that the petitioner was the largest beneficiary of the loan amount. 

   

4. Arguments for Bail: The petitioner’s senior counsel argued that the investigation was complete, and the chargesheet had been filed. He pointed out that the evidence against the petitioner was primarily based on disclosure statements, and other co-accused had already been granted bail. Additionally, some co-accused had not been charged or arrested. 

   

5. Opposition from the State: The State opposed the bail application, emphasizing the serious nature of the allegations and the substantial amount of money involved in the fraud. The State also highlighted that similar FIRs were pending against the petitioner. 

   

6. Legal Precedent: The judgment referenced legal precedents such as P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2020) and Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012), including the Supreme Court’s views on bail in economic offenses. It underlined that the grant or refusal of bail should be determined on a case-by-case basis, considering the gravity of the offense and the likelihood of the accused standing trial. 

   

7. Grant of Bail: After considering the facts and circumstances, including the nature of the evidence, the stage of trial, and the time spent in custody, the High Court granted bail to the petitioner. 

 

8. Bail Conditions: The petitioner was granted bail with certain conditions, including providing a personal bond, notifying any change of address, not leaving India without court permission, keeping operational mobile numbers, not tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and cooperating with the investigation. Violation of these conditions could lead to the cancellation of bail.

 

Decision   

 

After considering the facts, the court granted Navpreet Singh bail. It observed that the evidence against him was primarily based on disclosure statements, and he had complied with previous bail conditions when granted interim bail. The court also took into account the time Navpreet Singh had spent in judicial custody and the likely lengthy duration of the trial. Therefore, the court allowed his application and imposed specific bail conditions.  

   

Conclusion  

 

The decision was based on a consideration of various factors, including the nature of the evidence, the stage of the trial, and legal precedents related to bail in economic offenses. This judgment demonstrates the court’s commitment to upholding personal liberty and considering the specific circumstances of each case when deciding bail applications, particularly in economic offense cases.  

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.” 

 

Written by – Ananya Chaudhary 

Click here to view judgment

 

Case Title: Juglal Ram Chander v. Sh. Surinder Pal Jain 

Date of Decision: 10.08.2023 

Case Number: RC.REV. No. 500/2019 & CM Appl.38094/2019 

Coram: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU  

 

Introduction 

This case revolves around a dispute between a tenant (Juglal Ram Chander) and a landlord (Surinder Pal Jain) over the payment of use and occupation charges for a commercial property located in Sadar Bazar, Delhi. 

 

Factual Background 

The tenant had been in possession of the property for several decades, and an eviction order was issued against him in February 2019. The tenant filed a revision petition against the eviction order, and during the pendency of the petition, the landlord sought directions from the court to compel the tenant to pay use and occupation charges for the property. The tenant, on the other hand, argued that the building was old and dilapidated, and the shop’s location was less accessible and less valuable than claimed by the landlord. The dispute centered around the determination of the use and occupation charges for the premises during the pendency of the revision petition. 

 

Legal Issues 

1. Whether the tenant should be directed to pay use and occupation charges for the property during the pendency of the revision petition.
2. What would be the appropriate rate for calculating the use and occupation charges?
3. Whether the landlord’s reliance on certain lease deeds for similar properties is justified in determining the use and occupation charges?
4. What are the consequences of non-payment of the use and occupation charges by the tenant?

 

Court’s Analysis 

Use and Occupation Charges Calculation 

The court referred to a recent Supreme Court judgment (Martin and Harris Private Limited v. Rajendra Mehta) that upheld the principle that once an eviction order has been passed, the tenant should pay use and occupation charges at the market rate of similar properties until the final disposal of the petition. However, the court noted that the specific rate could vary based on factors such as property location, nature (commercial or residential), and standard rental rate. 

Comparison with Lease Deeds 

The court evaluated the two lease deeds presented by the landlord for similar properties. While acknowledging that the demised property was larger and situated in a prime commercial area, the court also took into consideration the property’s old and dilapidated condition. The court determined that the user charges should be discounted due to the property’s state. 

 

Court’s Decision 

The court ordered the tenant to pay use and occupation charges during the pendency of the revision petition. The court fixed the user charges at Rs. 25,000 per month, considering the property’s size, location, and condition. The payment schedule was established for different periods, with arrears, past use and occupation charges, and future use and occupation charges specified. The court also maintained that this calculation of user charges was tentative and could be subject to change based on the outcome of the petition. The court maintained the interim order allowing the tenant to occupy the premises subject to payment of the specified charges. 

 
Significance of the Judgment 

The court’s judgment in this case balanced the interests of the landlord and the tenant. It relied on legal principles established by previous judgments and applied them to the specific circumstances of this case to determine the appropriate use and occupation charges. The decision provided a clear payment schedule and outlined the consequences of non-compliance, ensuring that both parties were treated fairly in light of the eviction order and the ongoing revision petition. It establishes the principle that tenants are required to pay use and occupation charges at market rates for premises during the pendency of eviction cases, taking into account factors such as location, condition, and commercial value. 
 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.” 

 

Written by – Ananya Chaudhary 

Click here to view judgment

 

 Case Title: Hemant Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors 

Date of Decision: 11th August 2023 

Case Number: W.P.(C) 6827/2007 

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani 

 

Introduction 

The case revolves around a writ petition filed by Hemant Kumar under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the Government of NCT of Delhi and others. The petitioner challenges orders issued by Directorate General of Home Guard and Civil Defence (DG-Home Guards) discharging him from service as a Home Guard. The petitioner claimed that his discharge was arbitrary, and he sought the court’s intervention to address the injustice. 

 

Factual Background 
Hemant Kumar, the petitioner, was enrolled as a Home Guard in June 2003 for a period of three years and subsequently discharged from service based on his involvement in a criminal case. He had been accused of offenses under Sections 394 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, related to voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery. He was subsequently acquitted in the criminal trial. The petitioner submitted a representation for reinstatement after his acquittal, but it was rejected on the grounds that there was no provision for re-enrolment. The petitioner’s main contention was that his discharge and subsequent denial of re-enrolment were based on incorrect information regarding his conviction in the criminal case. 

 

Key Legal Issues 

1. Whether the petitioner’s discharge and denial of re-enrolment were valid in light of his acquittal in the criminal case.
2. Whether the discharge order was issued in accordance with the relevant legal provisions.
3. Whether the principles of natural justice were violated during the process?

 

Petitioner’s Contentions 

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case, which was based on insufficient evidence, should not be equated with conviction. The petitioner’s representation for re-enrolment was rejected without considering the actual merits of his case. It was further asserted that the petitioner’s principles of natural justice were violated as he was not afforded a proper hearing before the discharge order was passed. 

 
Respondent’s Contentions 

The DG-Home Guards argued that the petitioner’s involvement in a criminal case compromised the discipline of the Home Guards, and thus, he could not seek re-enrolment. The DG-Home Guards contended that the petitioner’s acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt indicated a lack of good conduct, which was undesirable for a disciplined force. They also argued that since the petitioner’s original enrollment had expired by the time he was acquitted, he could not be considered for re-enrolment. 

 

Court’s Analysis and Observation 

The court first addressed the principle that availability of an alternative remedy does not bar the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, especially when such remedy is ineffective, or time barred. It referred to precedent cases to establish this principle. The court cited the Supreme Court decision in Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. vs. Excise & Taxation Officer, which discussed the scope and exercise of writ powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court also cited exceptions where writ jurisdiction may be exercised despite the existence of an alternative remedy, such as violation of fundamental rights, violation of principles of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or challenge to the vires of an act. 

 

The court further referred to a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in V. Sadasiva vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, where it was held that the removal/termination of a Home Guard based on an acquitted criminal case was illegal. Regarding the petitioner’s acquittal, the court noted that being acquitted on benefit of doubt did not equate to conviction, and the DG-Home Guards incorrectly treated it as such. The court further underscored that the petitioner’s involvement in the criminal case could not be a valid reason for discharge or denial of re-enrolment after his acquittal. 

 

The court also noted that the discharge order and subsequent denial of re-enrollment were solely based on the mistaken belief that the petitioner had been convicted, whereas he had been acquitted with benefit of doubt. The court found that the petitioner’s discharge was arbitrary and not in compliance with legal requirements. 

 

In light of these observations, the court directed the DG-Home Guards to consider the petitioner’s fresh application for enrolment on its merits, indicating that his discharge based on his involvement in the criminal case would not be considered an impediment to his application. 

 

Court’s Decision and Conclusion 

The court held that the discharge order of the petitioner lacked legal basis and justification, as it was not in accordance with the provisions of the applicable statutes and rules. The court ruled that the petitioner’s involvement in a criminal case and subsequent acquittal should not be grounds for discharge or denial of re-enrolment. The court directed the DG-Home Guards to consider the petitioner’s fresh application for enrolment on its merits. The court clarified that the petitioner’s discharge due to his past criminal case would not hinder the consideration of his application. The judgment emphasizes the importance of considering the true nature of an acquittal and upholding the principles of natural justice. 

 
 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.” 

 

Written by – Ananya Chaudhary 

Click here to view judgment