Delhi High Court
Gopal @ Ajay vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 9 October, 2015
Author: P. S. Teji
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 1933/2015
Date of Decision : October 09th, 2015
GOPAL @ AJAY ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Jitender Tyagi, Adv. with
Mr.Rajesh Pandey, Adv.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Ms.Manjeet Arya, APP for the State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
P.S.TEJI, J.
1. The present application has been filed by the petitioner under
Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 for the grant of
regular bail in FIR No.45/2012, Police Station Kalkaji, under Sections
395/397/412/120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant Vijay Sarpal made
statement before the police that on the day of incident, he returned
back to his house after collecting money from his shop. His servant
Bahadur came out of the house to take money from the car. During
the process of taking out money, 3-4 boys came in a car. One of the
boy dragged Bahadur by his neck and another boy showed a pistol
like object and snatched the bags containing cash and fled away. In
one bag, there was cash of Rs.7 lakhs while in other bag there was
cash of Rs.3 lakhs along with other documents. On the basis of
statement of the complainant, FIR of the present case was registered.
3. During investigation, accused Pappu Kumar was arrested and
he disclosed the name of his associate as Guddu. A sum of
Rs.47,000/- was recovered at his instance. Thereafter, accused Jubair
Ahamad @ Raja and Gopay @ Ajay were arrested. At the instance of
accused Jubair Ahamad @ Raja, cash of Rs.18,500/- and shop papers
were recovered, whereas two cheque books and Rs.21,500/- were
recovered from accused Gopal @ Ajay. Thereafter, remaining
accused Rahul Balmiki, Rajendera @ Arjun and Annu were arrested.
Thereafter, accused Ramji Lal was arrested. Accused persons were
identified by the complainant. After completion of investigation
charge-sheet was filed.
4. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned APP for the State were heard.
5. The grounds taken by the petitioner are that the petitioner is in
custody since 03.03.2012; the prosecution evidence is still not
complete; recovery was effected after a long time; co-accused Rahul
has already been granted bail; no recovery of weapon was effected
from the possession of the petitioner; further detention of the
petitioner is not required as all the material witnesses have already
been examined.
6. On the other hand, learned APP for the State opposed the bail
application on the ground that the petitioner and his co-accused
persons committed dacoity of cash and other articles from the
complainant and that is too at a gun point. The offence alleged
against the petitioner is serious in nature and he does not deserve the
concession of bail.
7. Perusal of record reveals that the investigation of the case has
already been completed. The charge sheet has already been filed and
the trial is going on. The case is at the stage of prosecution evidence.
The petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than 43 months.
Since the case is still at the stage of prosecution evidence and the
conclusion of trial is likely to take time, no fruitful purpose would be
served to keep the accused behind the bars for an indefinite period.
8. In the facts and circumstances mentioned above, the
petitioner/accused is admitted to bail on furnishing the personal bond
in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to
the satisfaction of the Trial Court concerned. The petitioner is
directed not to tamper with the evidence, not to influence the
prosecution witnesses and shall not leave the country without prior
permission of the Court concerned.
9. The application is disposed of accordingly. However, it is
made clear that the observations made above shall not affect the
merits of the case.
(P.S.TEJI)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 09, 2015
dd
