Ramji Lal vs State (Nct Of Delhi)
2015 Latest Caselaw 7768 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     BAIL APPLN. 1949/2015
                                  Date of Decision : October 09th, 2015
      RAMJI LAL                                               ..... Petitioner
                         Through:       Mr.R.K. Gupta, Adv.

                         versus

      STATE (NCT OF DELHI)                                ..... Respondent
                    Through:            Mr.Ashish Dutta, APP for the State
                                        With SI Pawan Kumar, PS Kalkaji.


             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 Gopal @ 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 19.08.2012; the prosecution evidence is still not

complete; charge sheet has already been filed but the documents do

not support any charge against the petitioner; there is no evidence to

connect the accused apart from the alleged disclosure statement;

conclusion of trial will take long; petitioner was shown to the

complainant in the police station; two co-accused persons have

already been granted bail; there is no public witness to the alleged

recovery of Rs.19,700/-.

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. Recovery of part money

looted at the time of dacoity was recovered from the petitioner. 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 37 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