[email protected] vs State
2010 Latest Caselaw 5056 Del

                * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                Date of Reserve: October 27, 2010
                                                 Date of Order: 2nd November, 2010
+ BAIL APPLN. 245/2010
%                                                                      02.11.2010


        NAEEM @ ABID                                               ..... Petitioner
                                  Through: Mr. A.K.Mishra, Mr. B.D.Sharma &
                                  Ms. Pratibha, Advocates

                         versus


        STATE                                                ..... Respondent
                                  Through: Mr. Arvind Gupta, APP for the State with
                                  Mr. Jagdish Prasad, ASI PS Sarita Vihar



JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

JUDGMENT

This application under Section 439 Cr.P.C for bail has been

made by the accused who is involved in offence under Section

365/342/295/397/412/120-B IPC. It is submitted that the accused/applicant

was in jail since 26th August, 2007 and there was no likelihood of the trial

coming to end at an early date therefore he be released on bail. It is also

submitted that he was falsely implicated in the case and he was the only

person in the family who was looking after the family.

A perusal of record shows that the accused person waylaid the

complainant while he was returning from his jewellery shop, threatened him

with pistol, tied his hands, robbed him of his mobile phone and took out the

keys of the shop, opened the shop and took away some gold and around 5 kg

of silver. The present applicant is alleged to have master minded this dacoity.

The effort to arrest him turned futile and he became Proclaimed Offender

(PO), it was only later, when trial of the other accused was going on, he

surrendered before the Court and a supplementary challan was filed. The

accused is involved in other similar cases. The trial against the accused is

going and the witnesses are being recorded. Looking at the character of the

accused, there is every possibility that the accused may threaten the

witnesses and try to affect the trial. The fact that he had become a PO is a

relevant factor. I consider that it is not appropriate to grant him bail. The

application is hereby dismissed.

November 02, 2010                        SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
vn