Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DAILYLAW 2168 (DEL)

RAJ CHOPRA v. STATE OF NCT, DELHI

2007-09-03

Shiv Narayan Dhingra

body2007
( 1 ) THIS application is made on behalf of the petitioners viz Mr. Raj chopra, Mr. Charanjit Singh Sachdev, Mr. Raman Sehgal and S. R. Dutta under section 438 of the Cr. P. C. for grant of anticipatory bail and in the alternative transit bail for a period of 30 days. ( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab 18 (1980) DLT 405; Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab 19 (1981) DLT; and Captain Satish Kumar Sharma v. Delhi Administration and ors. 1991crl. L. J 950 to press his contentions and submitted that this Court had got jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail even when the offence is committed outside Delhi and in those cases where a person apprehends arrest in case of crimes outside Delhi. ( 3 ) IT is pertinent to note that in case of U. P. , the State Legislature has amended the provisions of Cr. P. C and Section 438 has been deleted as far as state of U. P. is concerned. So the relief under Section 438 Cr. P. C is not available to the accused persons in the State of U. P. The said amendment was challenged before the Supreme Court and was upheld by the Supreme Court. Thus as far as crimes committed in State of Uttar Pradesh are concerned, relief under provisions of Section 438 Cr. P. C is not available to the accused persons. ( 4 ) IT is settled law that this Court cannot legislate and can only apply law. Since the State Legislature has specifically delete the provisions of 438 in respect of offences committed in State of U. P, the offenders approaching any other High Court seeking relief under Section 438 Cr. P. C, the entertaining of application by the High Court under 438 would amount to legislation by the Court and the Court shall in fact be introducing a provision which is not there in the legislature. I, therefore, consider that as far as State of U. P is concerned, an application under Section 438 is not maintainable. In the judgments, cited by counsel for the petitioner, this aspect has not been considered. No cognizance has been taken in any of the judgments that the provisions of Section 438 were not available in State of U. P and that the same has been deleted by the legislature. In the judgments, cited by counsel for the petitioner, this aspect has not been considered. No cognizance has been taken in any of the judgments that the provisions of Section 438 were not available in State of U. P and that the same has been deleted by the legislature. ( 5 ) HOWEVER, looking into the peculiar facts of this case where address of the complainant as given in FIR is of Meerut while the address is actually of delhi and the fact that the jurisdiction of U. P has been invoked on the basis of signing of an agreement and not on the basis of the commission of any act in furtherance of crime, I consider that it would be appropriate for this Court to exercise power under Section 482 Cr. P. C and grant interim relief to the applicants so that they are in a position to approach Allahabad High Court and seek appropriate remedy there. ( 6 ) HENCE, two weeks protection is granted to the petitioners. None of the petitioner shall be arrested during two weeks from today either by Delhi police or by U. P. police in case FIR No. 293/2007 under Sections 406/420/467/468/504/506 IPC Police Station Sadar District Meerut, U. P. However, as and when the petitioners are asked to join investigation, they shall join investigation. This order shall exhaust itself after two weeks or earlier in the event of an order passed by the competent Court where petitioners approach earlier. ( 7 ) DASTI under the signatures of the Court Master.