Om Pal vs The State ( Nct Of Delhi)
2015 Latest Caselaw 8958 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                               Judgment delivered on : December 02, 2015
+     BAIL APPLN. 1751/2015
      OM PAL                                                ..... Petitioner
                         Through:     Ms.Neelam Singh, Advocate.

                         versus

      THE STATE ( NCT OF DELHI)                            ..... Respondent
                         Through:     Ms.Manjeet Arya, Additional Public
                                      Prosecutor for the State.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

                                  JUDGMENT

P.S.TEJI, J.

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 01.07.2015, passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini, Delhi, vide which the bail

application filed by the present petitioner has been rejected, the

petitioner has preferred the present bail application under Section 439

read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for

seeking bail in a case registered under FIR No.267/2012 under

Section 328/392/411/120-B/34 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station

Mahendra Park, New Delhi.

2. The FIR of the present case was registered on the complaint of

Shri Hemant Kumar, an employee of Logi Cash Solution Pvt. Ltd.,

and the allegation levelled against the petitioner in the FIR is that the

petitioner was a driver of vehicle No. DL-1RY-5-60 Maruti ECCO,

and on 28.09.2012, he was accompanying the complainant - Hemant

Kumar, Brijesh and Yogesh for loading the cash in different ATMs.

As per complaint, out of Rs.81 lac, firstly Rs.7 lac were loaded in

ATM of OBC at Kishanganj, thereafter, Rs.3 lac in ATM of OBC at

Kamla Nagar and after loading Rs.10 lac in ATM of Central Bank of

India at Ghantaghar, when the complainant came out of the ATM, he

saw that the driver Ompal (petitioner herein) was not near the vehicle

and upon asking from Brijesh, he was told that he will be coming

back in five minutes. After sometime Ompal came and took some

sweets from the small box of sweets in his hand and gave one piece to

Brijesh, one piece to Yogesh and one piece to the complainant. It is

alleged that after taking sweets, the complainant and Yogesh felt

dryness, palpitation headache, and intoxication. It is alleged that the

petitioner made Yogesh, Brijesh and complainant sit in a vehicle and

thereafter the complainant was not aware what happened. It is only in

the hospital, that the complainant came to know that out of Rs.81 lac,

only 30 lac were deposited in ATM. It is alleged that the petitioner

gave intoxicated sweets and got the complainant and others

unconscious and committed theft of Rs.51 lac from iron box which

was lying in the vehicle. Thereafter, the petitioner fled away.

3. The petitioner had also moved an application before learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini, which was rejected vide order

dated 1st July 2015.

4. Ms. Neelam Singh, Advocate appears on behalf of the

petitioner and submits that the petitioner is falsely implicated in the

case. To support his contention he referred to the FSL report, wherein

scientific analysis showed that on chemical microscopic and TLC

examination, Metallic poisons, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide,

phosphide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers and pesticides could

not be detected in exhibits "A1, 1B, 2,3B, 4,5A, 5B & 6". It is also

contended that out of Rs.51 lacs, Rs.47 lacs have been recovered,

therefore, the petitioner is no more required for any further

investigation, especially when the charge sheet has already been filed

in the case. It is further contended that there is no evidence against the

petitioner to link him with the commission of the alleged offence and

nothing incriminating has been recovered either from the petitioner or

at his instance, however the alleged recovery is a planted one. It is

also contended that the co-accused Smt. Geeta has already been

granted bail, therefore the petitioner also deserves the concession of

bail on parity. It is also submitted that the petitioner is in judicial

custody since the date of his arrest, i.e., 11.07.2013. At last, it is

contended that the petitioner is permanent resident of Delhi and

having a family therefore, there is no chance of his absconding or

fleeing from justice. It is also contended that the petitioner is having

clean antecedents and is not involved in any other criminal case,

therefore the petitioner ought to be granted bail in the aforesaid case.

5. Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

appears on behalf of the State and vehemently oppose the bail to the

petitioner. A status report is also filed on behalf of the State, wherein

it is stated that the petitioner - Om Pal was arrested on 12.7.2013 and

as per his disclosure statement, due to financial crises, he alongwith

his wife Geeta hatched a conspiracy and made a plan to give effect to

the incident in question. It is also stated that during the course of

investigation, it came to the notice that the petitioner has been already

involved in 10 criminal cases; charge sheet has already been

submitted in court and charges have been framed against the accused

on 21.10.2013 and the case is pending trial before the court of learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini Delhi; 26 prosecution witnesses

have been examined and 14 prosecution witnesses are yet to be

examined and the case is now fixed for further prosecution evidence

on 15th January 2016.

6. I have heard the contentions raised by learned counsel for the

petitioner and the status report filed on behalf of the State and also

gone through the material placed on record.

7. After considering the contents of the present petition as well as

the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, and going through the

material placed on record, this Court finds that the present accused is

a habitual offender and has been previously involved in as many as 10

other cases of robbery, theft and snatching in Delhi and NCR area;

and 14 more prosecution witnesses are to be examined and the next

date fixed for evidence on 15.01.2016. This court also observes that

there is a disclosure on behalf of the petitioner himself that he had

hatched conspiracy with his wife Geeta to commit the crime. There is

also recovery of the huge amount at the instance of the present

petitioner. So far as the parity claimed on the ground of bail granted to

the co-accused/wife of the petitioner, after perusing the impugned

order, this court observes that the bail was granted to the wife of the

petitioner purely on humanitarian ground as two children of the co-

accused were with the NGO and she was granted benefit, being a

woman.

8. Even the present petitioner is a notorious criminal and has

previously been involved in similar cases. It is also clear from the

facts on record that the charge sheet of the case has already been filed

and the petitioner has been charged with the offence punishable under

Section 392 of IPC and since 14 more prosecution witnesses are to be

examined therefore, the tampering of the evidence cannot be ruled

out.

9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present

case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner - Ompal does not

deserve the concession of bail in this case, at this stage. Accordingly,

the present application filed by the petitioner - Ompal is dismissed at

this stage.

10. It is made clear that any observation made in the aforesaid

order shall not affect the merits of the case.

11. With aforesaid observations, the present petition stands

disposed of.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE DECEMBER 02, 2015 pkb