Hari Singh vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi
2015 Latest Caselaw 9216 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                               Judgment delivered on : December 11, 2015
+     BAIL APPLN. 1596/2015 & Crl.M.A. Nos.7527/2015 & 7810/2015
      HARI SINGH                                      ..... Petitioner
                          Through:   Mr.Deepak Prakash, Advocate with
                                     Ms.Neelambari, Advocate.

                          versus

      THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI                  ..... Respondent
                    Through:  Ms. Manjeet Arya, Additional Public
                             Prosecutor for the State with Sub-
                             Inspector Ved Prakash, Police Station
                             Maurya Enclave, Delhi.

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

                                   JUDGMENT

P.S.TEJI, J.

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 04.08.2015,

passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, North-West, Rohini,

Delhi, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has declined

his bail application.

2. By this petitioner, the petitioner seeks regular bail under

Section 439 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 in a case registered under FIR No.232/2015 under Section

395/397/34 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Maurya Enclave,

New Delhi.

3. The prosecution case is based upon the statement of one Rajpal,

who was working as a Security Guard at Liquor Shop at Pitampura,

Delhi. It is alleged that on 13.3.2015, at about 2.30 am three boys

came there and one of them put a knife on his neck and threatened

him to kill if he raised alarm. It is further stated by the complainant

that one of them pressed his mount and the other boy caught hold of

his hands and forcibly took him inside the liquor shop, where he

found that 5 more boys were present. When police siren rang, all the

eight boys fled away and while fleeing from the spot, a mobile phone

of one of those boys fell down, which resulted in apprehending three

persons including the petitioner herein. During investigation, names

of other accused persons were disclosed but they could not be arrested

even after issuance of NBW and were preceded under Section 82/83

of Cr. P.C., but somehow succeeded in obtaining interim protection

from this Court subject to their joining the investigation.

4. It is further the case of the prosecution that during

investigation, the petitioner was granted interim bail for two weeks

and also filed a petition for quashing of the FIR on the ground of

settlement arrived at between the parties, but the same was later on

withdrawn. As per prosecution case, through the petitioner has no

other previous criminal involvement but there is a recovery of 50

cases/cartons of looted liquor from the petitioner.

5. While arguing the case of the petitioner, Mr. Deepak Prakash,

Advocate contended that there is neither any mention of his name in

the FIR nor any role is attributed or described in the statement of the

complainant. It is further contended that even in the Test

Identification Parade, the petitioner was not identified. The petitioner

is stated to be in custody since 15.03.2015 and the charge sheet in the

case has also been filed.

6. Counsel for the petitioner strongly urged that even if the

prosecution case is admitted in toto, the only offence which can be

alleged against the petitioner is under Section 411 of IPC and the

prosecution has falsely registered the case under Section 395/397 of

IPC.

7. Counsel for the petitioner also urged that the other co-accused

have either been granted bail or obtained interim protection in this

case and also claims that the petitioner be also granted bail on the

ground of parity as well. It is further stated that the charge sheet in the

case has been filed and the petitioner is no more required for any

custodial interrogation. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a

married man and running various businesses and till date no offence

has been committed by him and there is no chance to flee from

justice, therefore the petitioner/applicant ought to be granted bail in

the aforesaid case.

8. To oppose the contentions raised by learned counsel for the

petitioner, Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

for the State submitted that the conduct of the application, as observed

by the learned Trial Court, that he did not appear before the court on

21.7.2015 and 23.07.2015, even without moving application for

seeking exemption from personal appearance. Consequently, the trial

court had issued NBWs against the petitioner and on 23.7.2015

neither petitioner nor his surety had appeared before the court, despite

service of notice. Therefore, there is apprehension of the petitioner

jumping the bail, if granted.

9. The submissions and counter submissions made by Counsel for

the petitioner as well as by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for

the State have been heard and perused the material placed on record.

10. =take instructions from HMJ

11. (=if granted)

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

the status report filed on record, this Court observes that the petitioner

is in custody since 16.3.2015 and the other accused persons have

either been granted bail or have been granted interim protection

against their arrest. Charge sheet in this case has been filed and the

same is now fixed for framing of charge. This court also observes that

there is recovery of 50 cases/cartons of looted liquor from the

petitioner.

13. This court also observes that though the petitioner is charged

with the offence punishable under Section 395/397 of the IPC,

however, during TIP in jail on 18.03.2015, the complainant did not

identify the petitioner, despite the fact that the complainant had stated

in his statement that he can identify the persons who committed the

offence. It is also admitted case of the State that the co-accused in the

present case are either granted bail or obtained interim protection in

this case.

14. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this

Court take note of the facts; that the co-accused - Deepak Chaudhary

of the present case has already granted bail; the fact that during TIP,

the petitioner is not identified by the complainant of the FIR in

question; the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 15.03.2015;

Charge sheet in the present case has already been filed, therefore the

petitioner is no more required for further investigation and the trial is

likely to take time.

15. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court is

inclined to grant bail to the petitioner - Hari Singh in the present case

subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with

two sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

16. Needless to say that anything observed in this order shall not

have any bearing on merits of the case during trial.

17. With aforesaid direction, the present bail application as well as

pending applications, filed by the petitioner stand disposed of.

18. Dasti.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE DECEMBER 11, 2015 pkb