Sandeep vs The State
2019 Latest Caselaw 3715 Del

$~5

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                Judgment delivered on: 08.08.2019
+      BAIL APPLN. 2913/2018
SANDEEP                                               ..... Petitioner
                                 versus

THE STATE                                             ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner :      Mr.Vikas Bhardwaj, Adv.

For the Respondent:       Mr. Meenakshi Dahiya, Addl. PP for the State with
                          ASI Kuldeep, P.S.Paschim Vihar.

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

                            JUDGMENT

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

1. Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No.605/2018 under Section 381 IPC, Police Station Paschim Vihar.

2. Allegations against the petitioner are that petitioner was employed to take care of 18 telecom towers of the service provider to telecom companies. He is alleged to have last attended his office on 14.10.2018. Thereafter when inspection was carried out of the said towers after 2-3 days, it transpired that several battery equipment as well as telecom equipment was missing. Complaint was lodged and the FIR was registered.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated. He submits that petitioner had asked for a raise in salary and he was asked to fill up a service bond and since he declined to do the same, he was directed to hand over the charge, which he did on 14.10.2018 and subsequently he was implicated in the subject FIR.

4. Learned counsel further submits that in case the equipment was removed from the towers, the towers would stop functioning and it would immediately alert the telecom companies and apparently from the FIR no such thing happened.

5. By order dated 10.12.2018, petitioner was granted interim protection subject to joining investigation.

6. Learned APP under instructions submits that petitioner has joined investigation and investigation is complete and there is no further requirement of the petitioner to join investigation.

7. Without commenting on the merits of the case and keeping in view of the totality of the facts and circumstances, I am satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail.

8. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest, the arresting officer/IO/SHO shall release the petitioner on bail, on petitioner furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting

officer/Investigating Officer/SHO concerned. Petitioner shall not do anything that may prejudice either the trial or the prosecution witnesses. Petitioner shall join the investigation as and when so required by the IO.

9. Petition is allowed in the above terms.

10. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J AUGUST 8, 2019 rk