Delhi High Court
Kartik Solanki vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 5 February, 2018
$~64
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 05.02.2018
+ BAIL APPLN. 293/2018
KARTIK SOLANKI ..... Petitioner
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr K.K.Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr
Sameer Chandra and Mr Rajesh Kaushik
For the Respondent : Mr Akshai Malik, Addl. PP for the State.
Insp Prem Kumar.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
05.02.2018
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
Crl. M.A. 2209/2018(exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
BAIL APPLN. 293/2018
1. This is the second petition filed by the petitioner seeking
anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 390/2017 under section 419/457/380/34
IPC; Police Station Bhalswa Dairy.
2. It is noticed that the first anticipatory bail application of the
petitioner was dismissed by a detailed speaking order dated 03.11.2017.
The Court has, inter alia, recorded as under:-
"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 Details
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."
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the averment
of the prosecution that there were more than 80 calls received/made
between the petitioner and the co-accused between 27.06.2017 and
28.06.2017 is not substantiated from the record.
4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that after this order
was passed, a complaint making allegations against the SHO concerned
was made before the Police Commissioner and the Vigilance Department,
consequent to which, proceedings have been transferred to the District
Investigating Unit (D.I.U.).
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has produced the
case file and the call details record to show that calls were made/received
between the petitioner and the other co-accused as noticed in the order
dated 03.11.2017 on the first anticipatory bail application.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State further submits
that the petitioner is an absconder and proceedings for declaring the
petitioner as a Proclaimed Offender (P.O.) have been initiated. Proceedings
under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) have already
been concluded and proceedings under Section 83 Cr.P.C are pending and
matter is listed before the Trial Court on 23.02.2018.
7. By a detailed speaking order dated 03.11.2017, this court has
rejected the first anticipatory bail application of the petitioner. The CDRs
reveal that more than 80 calls were received/made to the co-accused
between 27.06.207 and 28.06.2017 and they continued to remain in touch
even after the incident. Recovery of remaining robbery property is yet to be
affected. No change in circumstances is pointed out, I am of the view that it
is not a fit case for exercise of discretion of grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner.
8. In my view, the complaint to the Vigilance Department by the
petitioner against the concerned SHO is of no consequence and does not
entitle him to grant of anticipatory bail.
9. In view of the above, I find no merit in the petition, the same is
accordingly dismissed.
10. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
February 05, 2018
'Sn'
