Delhi High Court
Saleem vs The State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) on 22 March, 2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of hearing and Order: 22nd March 2016
+ BAIL APPLN. 618/2016
SALEEM
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.C. Verma, Advocate
versus
THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Kamal Kumar Ghei, Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State with
Sub-Inspector Amrit Lal, Police
Station Krishna Nagar, Delhi
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
ORDER
%
P.S. TEJI, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner - Saleem seeks bail under Section 439 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr. P.C.) in
FIR No.455/2015 under Section 393/34 of IPC, at Police Station
Krishna Nagar, Delhi.
2. The case in brief is that on 19.06.2015, the complainant Brij Lal
stated in his complaint that at around 11 pm, when he was coming
from office carrying a bag in one hand and bag of curd in another, two
boys of 22-25 years of age came from behind and caught him. One of
them caught his neck and another put his hand into his pocket. In the
meantime, two boys of the same locality came over there on scooty
and asked him about what was happening. Thereafter, those two boys
said that uncle is unwell and thereafter, both the accused persons fled
away from the place.
3. The investigation was conducted and the petitioner surrendered
before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts,
Delhi on 23.07.2015 and since then he is in custody. During
interrogation, the petitioner disclosed the name of other co-accused as
Salmaan, who was apprehended on 17.08.2015. TIP of petitioner was
conducted and the complainant correctly identified the petitioner.
After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed.
4. Mr. S.C. Verma, counsel for the petitioner contended that the
petitioner is in custody since 23.07.2015, charge sheet has been filed,
and the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has already rejected the four
bail applications filed before him on the ground of seriousness and
enormity of the allegations leveled against the petitioner. Counsel for
the petitioner contended that the persons who came on scooty and
knew the complainant have not complained about anything against the
petitioner. It is further contended that the complainant did not raise
alarm when the petitioner had pressed the neck of the complainant
from behind, as alleged in the complaint. Lastly, it is contended that
the petitioner is in incarceration for more than seven months; trial of
this case has just begun and the trial may take considerable period of
time; nothing hyggas been recovered from the possession of the
petitioner; he has never put the complainant under fear and/or
demanded his belongings; charge sheet has been filed; complainant
has already been examined therefore, there is no possibility of
influencing him, therefore, the petitioner ought to be granted bail in
this case.
5. Mr. Kamal Kumar Ghei, Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State contended that the petitioner is charged with a grievous offence
and there is no infirmity in order passed by learned Metropolitan
Magistrate, therefore, the bail application ought to be dismissed.
6. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel appearing on
behalf of both the sides and gone through the material placed on
record.
7. After going through the contents of the present petition as well
as the impugned orders passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate and
considering the fact that the petitioner is a young boy in his 20s and
has burden of his family, and the fact that the complainant has already
been examined, therefore in the facts and circumstances of the case,
this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner - Saleem subject to
furnishing his personal bail bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with two
sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
Petitioner is directed not to tamper with the evidence and shall not
leave the country without prior permission of the court.
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. With aforesaid observations, the present bail application stands
disposed of.
10. Dasti.
P.S.TEJI, J
MARCH 22, 2016
pkb
