Delhi High Court
Bhanu Pratap Giri vs State on 13 September, 2018
$~89
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on:13.09.2018
+ BAIL APPLN. 1606/2018
BHANU PRATAP GIRI ..... Petitioner
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr. Mohan Kaushik, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Panna Lal Sharma, APP for the State
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
13.09.2018
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No. 553/2017 under Sections
394/397/34 of the IPC read with Section 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act
registered at Police Station Dwarka South, New Delhi.
2. The allegations in the FIR are that the complainant who runs a
jewellery shop was travelling by RTV bus when the RTV bus stopped at
CNG Station for refuelling the tank, the passengers got down and
complainant was standing at the roadside when two boys came and tried to
snatch his bag which, inter-alia, contained jewellery articles, cash money
and keys of the shop. When the complainant resisted he was hit by one of
the boys and other boys is alleged to have shot the complainant in the
stomach and snatched the bag. They sat in a car - Maruti Alto and drove
away from the spot.
3. Complainant had given the vehicle number. The vehicle was
subsequently traced out, figure prints were lifted from the vehicle as well as
chance finger prints were lifted from other articles in the car, inter-alia,
bottle. The allegation is that finger prints of one of the co-accused matched
and he was apprehended and in his disclosure statement he has stated that
he had sold the jewellery articles and distributed the sale proceeds with
other accused including the petitioner. In his disclosure statement, he had
stated that the petitioner was driving the vehicle.
4. Learned Addl. PP, under instructions, submits that the call detail
record shows that the petitioner was in touch with the other accused. He
further submits that four sets of finger prints were lifted from the vehicle,
however, none of them matched with the petitioner. Learned Addl. PP
further submits that there was recovery of some of the articles pursuant to
disclosure statement made by the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has
been falsely implicated and he submits that there is nothing to connect the
petitioner with the said offence and admittedly the finger prints lifted from
the car and articles did not match those of the petitioner. He submits that
the petitioner was nowhere at the crime scene but was in Rohini when the
offence is alleged to have taken place. He further submits that admittedly as
per the disclosure statement two boys got down from the car and it was not
the petitioner who is alleged to have got down from the car and assaulted
the complainant.
6. He further submits that the petitioner was not aware of the use of a
gun to shoot the complainant. He further submits that the recovery of the
articles is contradicted by the alleged disclosure statement wherein the co
accused had stated that he had sold all the jewellery articles and distributed
the sale proceeds. He submits that the alleged recovery has not been done
after following due process and is also suspect.
7. Petitioner has been in custody since 06.03.2018 in this case.
8. Without commenting on the merits of the case and on perusal of the
records, I am satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of
regular bail. Accordingly, on petitioner furnishing a bail bond in the sum of
Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
Trial Court, the petitioner shall be released on bail, if not required in any
other case. The petitioner shall not do anything, which may prejudice either
the trial or the prosecution witnesses. The petitioner shall not leave the
country without permission of the Trial Court.
9. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
10. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
SEPTEMBER 13, 2018
'rs'
