Delhi High Court
Sittu Mandal @ Gopal vs State on 3 August, 2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Bail Application No.1298/2016
Date of Decision: August 03, 2016
SITTU MANDAL @ GOPAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Adv.
versus
STATE ..... Respondents
Through Mr.M.P.Singh, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
P.S.TEJI, J.
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.359/2015 under
Section 365/392/397/506/34 IPC registered at Police Station:
Mahendra Park, Delhi.
2. The case in the nutshell is that on the intervening night of
28/29.04.2015, the complainant/Arvind Kumar S/o Sh.Nandeshwar
Rai Prabhakar came to the police station Mahendra Park and lodged a
complaint vide DD No.7B. In his statement to the IO, the complainant
stated that in the intervening night of 28/29.04.2015 while he was
coming from Ambala to Delhi in a Haryana Roadways Bus and got
down at Karnal Bypass at around 12.15 AM under the Mukarba
Chowk flyover, one EECO van having registrationNo.DL 8C AD
3043 stopped near him and 5-6 persons were present in the van. One
boy got down and caught him by his neck and pushed him inside the
van. Thereafter, two boys pulled out knives and put on his stomach
from both sides. The accused persons robbed him off his cash
Rs.1,200/-, three ATM Cards, Voter I-Card, Driving Licence, two
mobile phones and PAN card and also asked him to disclose the
password of ATM Cards at the point of knife. The accused persons
withdrew cash from ATM of AXIS bank near Village Nangli Poona,
Delhi. Accordingly FIR in question was registered under Sections
365/392/397/506/34 IPC at Police Station: Mahendra Park, Delhi.
Subsequenty, section 395/412 IPC were also added to the case.
3. During the investigation, ownership of the EECO bearing
No.DL 8C AD 3043 which was used in the commission of the offence
was obtained from the transport autohrity and was found to be
registered in the name of one Mr.Mushtakin S/o Ash Mohd. On
interrogation, Mr.Mushtakin told that he had sold the EECO van to
Rajveer S/o Hakim Singh. Thereafter, IO accompanied Mushtakin to
the house of Rajveer and found the van parked there. The complainant
identified the vehicle. Rajveer stated that on 28.04.2015 his nephew
Shyam @Shyamu had taken the vehicle from him and returned the
same on the intervening night of 28/29.04.2015 at 2 AM. Shyam was
accompanied with his neighbour Sittu (petitioner herein), Yogesh and
Shahrukh, whose residence was known to him. Thereafter, Rajveer
showed the house of accused persons and the petitioner was found in
his house. The complainant identified him as the person who was
driving the EECO van in question.
4. During further investigation, the petitioner was arrested and
confessed to the commission of offence and told the police that he had
received his share as Rs.500/- when he produced and also identified
the scene of crime. Thereafter, at the instance of the petitioner, piece
of ATM card (Central Bank of India) was recovered from a place near
Swaroop Nagar Canal. The petitioner also identified the ATM (Axis
Bank) Nangli Poona Village from where the money was withdrawn.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his case has
taken the grounds that accused has been in custody for more than one
year; that charge sheet has been filed in the matter, but still the
testimony of the complainant is not complete. As a result, the
petitioner is languishing in jail; that investigation is already complete
and there are no chances of evidence being tampered with; that the
complainant has identified the petitioner only as a driver who was
driving the EECO van in question and he was not the one who forcibly
made the complainant enter the van and robbed him on the point of
knife; that the applicant has no concern with the commisison of
offence; that the petitioner, if released on bail, undertakes to appear
before the Court on each and every date and shall comply with the
conditions if so imposed.
6. Per contra, the learned APP for the State has vehemently
opposed the grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the ground that
the complainant has identified him as the person who was driving the
EECO van in question; that fourteen prosecution witnesses are yet to
be examined and if released on bail, in view of the gravity of offence,
the petitioner is likely to threaten the witnesses and tamper with the
evidence.
7. From the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court
observes that the petitioner was one of the robbers; he was identified
by the complainant as the person who was driving the vehicle used in
the commission of offence of robbery; that he got recovered a piece of
ATM card (Central Bank of India) belonging to the complainant
which was used to withdraw the money and the active role played by
the petitioner in the robbery. Keeping in view the seriousness of
offence, recovery effected by the petitioner and apprehension
regarding influencing the prosecution witnesses, this court is not
inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.
8. Before parting with the order, this court would like to place it
on record by way of abundant caution that whatever has been stated
hereinabove in this order has been so said only for the purpose of
disposing of the prayer for bail made by the petitioner. Nothing
contained in this order shall be construed as expression of a final
opinion on any of the issues of fact or law arising for decision in the
case which shall naturally have to be done by the Trial Court seized of
the trial.
9. The present bail application is accordingly dismissed.
(P.S.TEJI)
JUDGE
AUGUST 03, 2016
dm
