Devender Singh @ Roxy vs State (Nct Of Delhi)
2013 Latest Caselaw 2634 Del

*          IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                Reserved on: 29th May, 2013
%                                           Date of Decision: 31st May, 2013

+      BAIL APPLN. 668/2013
       DEVENDER SINGH @ ROXY                      ..... Petitioner
                       Through: Mr. O.N. Sharma and Mr. Sanjay
                                Kumar, Advocates.
                versus

       STATE (NCT OF DELHI)                                 ..... Respondent
                      Through:           Ms. Jasbir Kaur, APP along with SI
                                         Rajesh Kumar Singh, P.S. Naraina.

CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR

                               JUDGMENT

R.V. EASWAR, J.:

1. This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under section 438 of

the Cr.P.C. by Devender Singh @ Roxy in case FIR No.72/2013 registered in

P.S. Naraina under section 379/ 411/ 201/ 34 of the IPC.

2. According to the prosecution, an FIR was registered at the instance of

one Ravinder Singh who complained that his Maruti Van bearing No.DL-2C-

AF-4520 which was parked under the Naraina flyover was stolen. Based on

the FIR, the police arrested a person by name Makdoom on 22.03.2013 from

Mayapuri. Two other persons by name Narender Singh and Mahinder Singh,

who were the brothers of the accused, were also arrested on 23.03.2013. It

appears that some tyres were recovered from them. The allegations against

the accused (applicant herein) is that stolen vehicles used to be brought to him

and he was in the business of getting the vehicles dismantled in order to sell

the parts. The Sessions Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application of

the applicant on the ground that custodial interrogation of the accused is

required.

3. It is stated before me that both Makdoom and Mahinder who were

arrested have been enlarged on bail and that the custodial interrogation of the

accused is not required. It further appears that the stolen vehicle was

recovered. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor who opposed the bail

submitted that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is required in order

to elicit information from him about other stolen vehicles the persons

involved, etc. She submitted that though the applicant, who was granted

interim bail by this Court vide order dated 26.04.2013, was directed by this

Court to join the investigation, he is not cooperating with the police. The

applicant, it is submitted, has also received money for doing the job. As the

investigation is at the initial stages, it is contended that the anticipatory bail

should not be granted.

4. Having considered the matter carefully I am of the view that the

anticipatory should be granted. The vehicle has already been recovered. The

other two persons arrested in connection with the theft, namely, Makdoom

and Mahinder have been enlarged on bail. There is no earlier conviction of

the applicant.

5. In these circumstances, the anticipatory bail is granted subject to the

applicant executing a personal bond in the amount of `20,000/- with one

surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. The applicant is

directed to continue to join the investigation as and when required by the

SHO/ IO concerned and genuinely cooperate in the investigation. He is

further directed not to leave Delhi without prior permission of this Court and

not to tamper with or influence the evidence/ witnesses in the case. The

anticipatory bail application is allowed subject to the above conditions.

(R.V. EASWAR) JUDGE MAY 31, 2013 hs