Delhi High Court
Kartik Solanki vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi on 3 November, 2017
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 1940/2017
Order reserved on : 24th October, 2017
Order pronounced on : 3rd November, 2017
KARTIK SOLANKI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. K.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate with
Ms.Sonia Sharma, Mr Rajesh Kaushik
and Mr. Sameer Chandra, Advocates.
Versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Akshai Malik, APP for the State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 438 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred "Cr.PC."), the
petitioner seeks grant of Anticipatory Bail in FIR No.
390/2017 under Sections 419/457/380/392/411/120-B/34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as "IPC")
registered at Police Station Bhalswa Dairy, New Delhi. Status
report is on record.
2. The case of the Prosecution is that the petitioner gave secret
information to Ct. Manohar Lal working in Delhi Police about
the illegal storage of Sandalwood in a Godown at Gali No. 8
Swaroop Nagar Extension Delhi and to verify the secret
information both went to the spot where Ct. Ajay special cell
and HC Deepak Special Cell reached on 27.06.2017 at about
6:00 PM and left after verifying that the storage of Sandalwood
is legal. The petitioner and Manohar Lal got lured with the huge
quantity of Sandalwood and contacted Sub Inspector Gaurav
from the mobile phone of the petitioner, as it would mean a lot
of money. SI Gaurav sent another SI in uniform to execute the
plan. In the meantime the petitioner left to meet his aunt and
Jitender, who was acquainted with Ct. Manohar came to the
spot and forwarded their location to SI Gaurav. Soon after, SI
Anuj came to the spot and SI Gaurav's friend Naresh also
reached the spot with his tempo. Thereafter, Naresh, Ct.
Manohar Lal, SI Anuj and Jitender entered the godown and SI
Anuj who was in the police uniform controlled the guard of the
godown, Naresh directed the tempo driver to bring his vehicle
inside the godown, while Manohar, Jitender and Naresh broke
the lock of the room where the Sandalwood was stored with a
hammer and an iron rod. Thereafter, they loaded 30 sacks of
Sandalwood in the vehicle. Jitender took out the SIM from the
Chowkidar's mobile phone and thereafter they all left the spot
with Sandalwood laden vehicles and on the instructions of SI
Gaurav they hid 14 sacks of Sandalwood in a safe place and
sent over the remainder to him. After sometime SI Gaurav
called confirming that he had received the Sandalwood.
3. The following day Bhagwan Sharma who was the Contractor
went to the godown and was informed about the whole incident
by Chowkidar Maniram, after which he informed the owner of
the Godown of the same and FIR No. 390/2017 was
subsequently lodged.
4. Mr. K.K. Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner
contended that the petitioner has been falsely and maliciously
implicated by the complainant in connivance with the local
police; that the petitioner is not even named in the F.I.R.; that
there is an unexplained delay of one day in the registration of
the F.I.R.; that the petitioner was present at his house at the
time of the incident as narrated by the complainant and this can
be proved by the CCTV footage of the camera outside the
house of the petitioner and through his mobile location; that
nothing has been recovered either from the possession of the
accused or at his instance; that Sections 34 and 120-B of the
Indian Penal Code cannot be used together as the alleged
incident could have been committed either after hatching the
conspiracy or by forming the common intention at the spot of
crime; that the petitioner is being perceived as an accused solely
on the basis of an inadmissible piece of evidence that is the
disclosure statement of the co-accused; that the case of the
police does not inspire any confidence as tons of sandalwood
could not have been robbed without any planning for its storage
or selling the same; that the motive of stealing is
unsubstantiated; that the fact that there is no license with the
owner/smuggler of sandalwood to keep and sell the sandalwood
in Delhi has not been acknowledged by the Investigating
Officer with the ulterior motive to falsely implicate the
petitioner who were discharging their duty by trying to unearth
the racket of sandalwood smuggling.
5. Per Contra, Mr. Akshai Malik, APP for the state opposed the
bail application and contended that the petitioner is not liable to
be granted Anticipatory Bail as he has been involved in the
commission of a serious offence. He further stated that the
accused may evade the process of law, threaten the complainant
and may also tamper with the evidences being collected during
investigation.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and
perused the material on record.
7. Reference may be made to the judgement of the Apex Court in
Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth v. State Of Gujrat reported in
(2016) 1 SCC whereinthe principles for grant or refusal of
anticipatory bail have been laid down, which are reproduced
here as under:-
"(x) We shall also reproduce para 112 of the
judgment wherein the Court delineated the
following factors and parameters that need to be
taken into consideration while dealing with
anticipatory bail:
(a) The nature and gravity of the accusation and
the exact role of the accused must be properly
comprehended before arrest is made;
(b) The antecedents of the applicant including the
fact as to whether the accused has previously
undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court
in respect of any cognizable offence;
(c) The possibility of the applicant to flee from
justice;
(d) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to
repeat similar or other offences;
(e) Where the accusations have been made only
with the object of injuring or humiliating the
applicant by arresting him or her;
(f) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly
in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large
number of people;
(g) The courts must evaluate the entire available
material against the accused very carefully. The
court must also clearly comprehend the exact role
of the accused in the case. The cases in which the
accused is implicated with the help of and 149 of
the Penal Code, 1860 the court should consider
with even greater care and caution, because
overimplication in the cases is a matter of common
knowledge and concern;
(h) While considering the prayer for grant of
anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck
between two factors, namely, no prejudice should
be caused to free, fair and full investigation, and
there should be prevention of harassment,
humiliation and unjustified detention of the
accused;
(i) The Court should consider reasonable
apprehension of tampering of the witness or
apprehension of threat to the complainant;
(j) Frivolity in prosecution should always be
considered and it is only the element of
genuineness that shall have to be considered in the
matter of grant of bail and in the event of there
being some doubt as to the genuineness of the
prosecution, in the normal course of events, the
accused in entitled to an order of bail.''
8. It has been revealed from the investigation that the petitioner
has been actively involved in the commission of the crime. It
has been further revealed through the Call Detail Records that
on the day of the incident the petitioner was present at the scene
of crime from 6:00 PM to 10:00 PM. Further, the CDRs
revealed that the petitioner received/made more than 80 calls to
the co-accused persons between 27.06.2017 and 28.06.2017 and
they continued to remain in constant touch even after the
incident. Recovery of remaining robbed property is yet to be
made. Moreover, despite specific allegations from the Court of
the Addl. Sessions Judge petitioner did not cooperate in the
investigation and thus the chance of the petitioner escaping the
procedure of law, tampering with the evidence or threatening
the complainant and witnesses exists.
9. Keeping in view the principles laid down by the Apex Court,
the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the present case,
the allegations against the petitioners and gravity of offence,
this Court does not deem it fit to grant discretionary relief of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
10. Accordingly, the present application filed by the petitioner is
dismissed.
11. Before parting with above order, it is made clear that anything
observed in the present petition shall not have any bearing on
the merits of the case during trial.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.
NOVEMBER 03, 2017
gr//
