Lakshya vs The State
2019 Latest Caselaw 1086 Del

$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                     Judgment delivered on: 18.02.2019
+      BAIL APPLN. 756/2018
       LAKSHYA                                            ..... Petitioner
                             versus

       THE STATE                                          ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner :         Mr.Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:          Mr.Hirein Sharma, APP for the State
                             with SI Pankaj, P.S.Kirti Nagar.

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

                                JUDGMENT

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

1. Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No.2124/2018 under Sections 379/411/34 IPC, Police Station Kirti Nagar.

2. The subject FIR was registered on the complaint of the owner of the vehicle who stated that he had parked the vehicle in front of his house and subsequently found that the vehicle had been stolen.

3. As per the case of the prosecution, the person who had stolen the vehicle approached the complainant and assured recovery of some of the goods which were in the vehicle. The co-accused was apprehended and in his disclosure statement he has named the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been

falsely implicated. He submits that there is no material on record to connect the petitioner with the subject offence except for the alleged disclosure statement of the co-accused. He further submits that there is no recovery from the petitioner or recovery at the behest of the petitioner. He further submits that admittedly the stolen vehicle has been recovered but the same has not been recovered from the petitioner or at his pointing out.

5. By order dated 09.04.2018 petitioner was granted interim protection subject to joining investigation. Learned APP submits that investigation is complete and charge sheet is in the process of being finalised for being filed in the Court. He submits that the petitioner had joined investigation.

6. Without commenting on the merits of the case and keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances, I am satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest, the arresting officer/IO/SHO shall release the petitioner on bail on his furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/Investigating Officer/SHO concerned. Petitioner shall not do anything which may prejudice either the investigation, trial or the prosecution witnesses.

7. Petition is allowed in the above terms.

8. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

FEBRUARY 18, 2019/rk                             SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J