Anmol Kumar vs The State Nct Of Delhi
2015 Latest Caselaw 6211 Del

$~21
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                    Date of Order: August 24, 2015

+     BAIL.APPLN.1710/2015 & CRL.M.A.12161/2015
      ANMOL KUMAR                                          ..... Petitioner
                           Through:      Mr. J.P.Singh, Advocate

                           versus

      THE STATE NCT OF DELHI                    ..... Respondent
                    Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, Additional
                             Public Prosecutor for State with SI
                             Sandeep Kumar

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                           ORDER

% (ORAL)

Crl.M.A.12161/2015 (Exemption)

Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Bail Appln. No.1710/2015

Petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in FIR No.900/2015 under Section 394/34 IPC registered at Police Station Shahbad Dairy, Delhi while claiming to be innocent.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is a cable TV operator having annual turnover of `40 lac and has no previous involvement and the alleged stolen articles have been recovered from co- accused and that no deadly weapon was used. It was submitted that Bail. Application No.1710/2015 Page 1 petitioner is the sole bread-earner of his family and no active role has been attributed to petitioner, and so he deserves pre-arrest bail.

This application is strongly opposed by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State, who submits that the petitioner had facilitated commission of offence in question which is punishable upto life imprisonment or RI for 10 years and fine and that petitioner is named in the FIR and was very much involved in commission of the offence in question. It is submitted that although robbed bag has been recovered but the robbed money has not been recovered as yet and for this purpose custodial interrogation of petitioner is required.

Upon hearing and on perusal of FIR in question and material on record, I find that petitioner was very much party to commission of offence in question and the gravity of offence in question dissuades this Court to exercise the discretion to grant pre-arrest bail to petitioner as in serious offence like the instant one pre-arrest bail ought not to be granted.

This application is accordingly dismissed while not commenting upon merits of this case, lest it may prejudice petitioner when he seeks regular bail.

                                                         (SUNIL GAUR)
                                                            JUDGE
August 24, 2015
vn




Bail. Application No.1710/2015                                        Page 2