Shashank Sharma @ Mayank vs State Of Delhi
2015 Latest Caselaw 7812 Del

*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+   BAIL APPLN. 2159/2015
                                   Date of Decision : October 12th, 2015
    SHASHANK SHARMA @ MAYANK                          ..... Petitioner
                        Through    Mr.Rahul Mohod and Ms.G. Bhavana
                                   Rao, Advs.

                        versus

    STATE OF DELHI                                   ..... Respondent
                 Through           Mr.Satya Narayan, APP.
                                   SI Anand, PS Civil Lines.


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

    P.S.TEJI, J.

1. The present application has been filed by the petitioner/accused

under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 for the

grant of regular bail in FIR No.217/2015, Police Station Civil Lines,

under Sections 392, 511, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal

Code,1860.

2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant Avdhesh Shah

made a statement before the police that he used to carry goods from

the shop Ankit Electronics, Shop No.11/161, New Moti Nagar, Delhi.

On the day of incident, he was carrying one washing machine make

Godrej, one cooler make Ken Star, one AC make Godrej, one mixer

grinder and one stabiliser in his rickshaw from the shop to be

delivered at Ramghat, Wazirabad. When he reached at Shiv Mandir,

after crossing red light of Chandgiram Akhara, he stopped for a while

for rest. When the complainant was drinking water, two boys came

there and unloaded the goods from his rickshaw and started loading

the same in a Van. When complainant objected, he was given slaps

by those boys. He was also threatened that if he raise the alarm, he

would be finished. When a passerby asked the complainant what was

the matter, he informed that those boys had looted the goods. In the

meanwhile, some police officials came at the spot and both the boys

were apprehended.

3. During enquiry, the names of those boys were revealed as

Dhirender Deshwal @ Vicky and Shashank Sharma. The robbed

goods were found in the parked Van. On the basis of the statement of

the complainant, FIR of the present case was registered. Both the

accused were arrested. After completion of investigation charge-

sheet was filed in the Court.

4. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned APP for the State were heard.

5. The counsel for the petitioner/accused argued that he is in

custody since 30.05.2015. He was granted interim bail for a period of

about 45 days vide order dated 03.08.2015 by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge. The co-accused Dhirender Deshwal has already been

granted regular bail vide order dated 18.08.2015 by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioner was arrested from his

residence. The investigation is already complete and charge sheet has

already been filed. The wife of the petitioner has given birth to a

baby in the recent past and there is nobody in the family to take care

of the wife and children.

6. On the other hand, learned APP for the State has opposed the

bail application on the ground that the petitioner and his co-accused

were apprehended from the spot. They have committed the robbery

of goods lying in the rickshaw of the complainant after giving him

beatings and criminally intimidating him. The robbed articles were

recovered from the spot itself. 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 case is is still at the initial stage. It is matter of record that

investigation qua the petitioner/accused is already complete and he is

no more required for the purpose of any further investigation. It is

also matter of record that the co-accused has already been released on

regular bail.

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 allowed accordingly. However, it is made

clear that the observations made above shall not affect the merits of

the case.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE OCTOBER 12, 2015 dd