Delhi High Court
Harpal Sharma vs The State Of Nct Delhi on 15 March, 2016
Author: P. S. Teji
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on : March 15, 2016
+ BAIL APPLN. 103/2016
HARPAL SHARMA
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Deepak Prakash, Mr.Vishal
Somany, Mr.Karri Venkata Reddy and
Ms.Shruti Srivastava, Advocates.
versus
THE STATE OF NCT DELHI
..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Amit Chadha, Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
JUDGMENT
%
P.S. TEJI, J.
1. The present petition under Section 439 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr. P.C.), has been filed
by the petitioner for seeking bail in a case registered as FIR No.
232/2015 under Sections 395/397/412/342/458 of Indian Penal Code,
at Police Station Maurya Enclave, Delhi.
2. 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 13.03.2015, at about 2.30 am three boys
came there and one of them placed a knife on his neck and threatened
him to kill him if he raised alarm. It is further stated by the
complainant that one of them pressed his mouth 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
apprehension of the accused persons.
3. The FIR in question was registered, investigation started and
during investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded, evidence
was collected, a mobile phone was recovered and after procuring
details of the said mobile phone, it was revealed that the same was in
the name of the petitioner. The other co-accused Hari Singh revealed
about his involvement in the commission of crime and also named his
associates including the petitioner herein. Petitioner surrendered
before the police and on identification by the complainant - Rajpal, he
was arrested. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was
filed.
4. Mr.Deepak Prakash, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner contended that the petitioner is a driver by profession and
has never been involved in any criminal offence and his antecedents
are clear. It is further contended that the name of the petitioner was not
mentioned in the FIR, however upon search of his lost mobile, he was
arrested in the present case and is in judicial custody since 22.03.2015.
It is further contended that the petitioner has also lodged a complaint
bearing SO No.430/2014 regarding theft of his phone in Police Station
Crime Branch, Delhi on 14.03.2015.
5. Counsel for the petitioner further contended that the other co-
accused in this case namely, Mr. Manoj Singh, Yogender Singh and
Hari Singh have already been released on bail in the present case but
the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 08.01.2016 has
dismissed the third bail application of the petitioner. The petitioner
seeks parity with the other co-accused in the present case. It is
contended on behalf of the petitioner that the charge sheet in this case
has been filed and there is no chance of tampering with the evidence.
Lastly, it is urged that the petitioner is the only earning member in his
family who is working as a driver and has a family comprising his
wife, children and old aged parents, and nobody is there to look after
them, therefore the petitioner ought to be granted bail in the present
case.
6. Mr. Amit Chadha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State submitted that the case of the petitioner is on a different footing,
as the recovered mobile from the site belongs to the petitioner
therefore, he cannot seek parity with the other co-accused persons.
7. The submissions and counter submissions made by learned
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.
8. 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 22.03.2015 and the other accused persons namely,
Mr. Manoj Singh, Yogender Singh, Hari Singh have already released
on bail. Charge sheet in this case has been filed and the same is now
fixed for framing of charge.
9. This Court also observes that the petitioner was identified by the
complainant. It is also admitted case of the State that the co-accused in
the present case are either on bail or they have obtained interim
protection in this case.
10. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court take note of the facts that the co-accused - namely, Mr. Manoj
Singh, Yogender Singh and Hari Singh in the present case have
already granted bail; the petitioner is in custody since 22.03.2015 and;
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.
11. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is
inclined to grant bail to the petitioner - Harpal Sharma 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.
12. 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.
13. With aforesaid direction, the present bail application as well as
pending applications, filed by the petitioner stand disposed of.
14. Dasti.
P.S.TEJI, J
MARCH 15, 2016
pkb
