Delhi High Court
Roshan Alias Rohan vs State on 6 December, 2017
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 2317/2017
Order reserved on : 24th November, 2017
Order pronounced on : 6th December, 2017
ROSHAN @ ROHAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Biswajit Kumar Patra, Advocate.
Versus
STATE .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Akshai Malik, APP for the State with
ASI Mahesh Kumar, Crime Branch.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
1. This is an application under Section 439 Cr.PC seeking grant of
interim bail for a period of 3 months in case FIR No. 378/2014
under Section 395/394/397 IPC registered at Police Station -
Lahori Gate on the ground of repair his dilapidated house.
2. An FIR has been registered in the instant case on the complaint of
Gaurav Rathi, a dry fruits wholesale commission agent alleging
that on 09.12.2014 at about 6:15 p.m., four assailants entered his
office and robbed Rs.1.15 Crores at the gun point after tying him
with ropes; that in his supplementary statement, the complainant
mentioned that the exact robbed amount was Rs.1.40 Crores; that
the matter was transferred to the Crime Branch; that during
investigation 8 persons were arrested including the present
petitioner; that robbed amount of Rs.62.5 Lac was recovered; that
BAIL APPLN. 2317/2017 Page 1 of 3
chargesheet has been filed and is pending consideration before the
Trial Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case; that
the petitioner is willing to repair his dilapidated house which is the
only shelter of his family and minor children; that the petitioner has
responsibility of his mother, wife and two minor children; that
family of the petitioner is facing hardship in arranging school fees
and other education expenses of the children; that elder brother of
the petitioner is physically challenged whereas younger brother is
married and living separately; that two co-accused have already
been granted regular bail whereas two co-accused persons have
been released on interim bail.
4. Per contra, learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the
present application and argued that the petitioner played key and
active role in the alleged crime.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
6. The petitioner has sought interim bail for three months for carrying
out repair of his dilapidated house. Verification report has been
submitted by the State as per which applicant has a joint family
consisting of his wife, two minor children aged about 10 years and
6 years, elder brother aged about 45 years, younger brother aged
about 31 years and his wife. Brothers of the applicant as well as
his wife are earning members of the family. Moreso, the present
case involves robbery of about Rs.1.40 Crores at gun point and it is
BAIL APPLN. 2317/2017 Page 2 of 3
alleged against the applicant that he hatched the entire conspiracy
with other accused persons and received his share of Rs.38 Lac
from the booty and Rs.15 Lac robbed cash was recovered at his
instance.
7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case,
gravity of offence and the role assigned to the applicant, I am not
inclined to grant interim bail to the applicant.
8. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
9. Before parting with the aforesaid order, it is made clear that
anything observed above shall not have any bearing on the merits
of the case during trial.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.
DECEMBER 06, 2017
gr
