Delhi High Court
Bharat Kumar Goswami vs State on 28 February, 2019
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 28.02.2019
+ BAIL APPLN. 300/2019
BHARAT KUMAR GOSWAMI ..... Petitioner
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. V. Madhukar and Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Advs.
For the Respondent: Mr. Hirein Sharma, Addl. PP for the State with SI
B.P. Singh
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No. 234/2017 under Section
392/397/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 27/54/59 of
the Arms Act registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Delhi.
2. The subject FIR was registered on the complaint of one Rishab
Jain who contended that he collected approximately Rs. 11 lakhs from
a trader and was taking it to his shop kept in a red colour bag which
was kept in a scooty. It is alleged that when he along with his
colleague were going on the road they were stopped by four boys on a
motorcycle. They started fighting with them and two of them showed
a revolver and at gunpoint snatched the scooty as well as the bag
containing money. He further in the complaint states that he saw those
four boys and could identify them if they are produced before him.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated. He submits that the petitioner was
initially arrested in a case under the Arms Act and thereafter is alleged
to have made a disclosure statement that he was involved in the
subject offence.
4. Learned counsel further submits that there is no evidence
connecting the petitioner with the subject offence except the
disclosure statement. He further submits that the currency which is
alleged to have been recovered from the petitioner, has not been
connected to the currency which was allegedly stolen as neither the
currency is identifiable nor the numbers were marked/noted.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged
recovery of scooty at the pointing out of the petitioner is also suspect
as the alleged recovery is through a joint disclosure statement of the
petitioner along with other co-accused and recovery has been made
from a public place.
6. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has already
been acquitted in one of the cases and in all other cases, in which he is
alleged to be involved, he has already been enlarged on bail.
7. Learned counsel further submits that the complainant has
already been examined before the trial court and he has failed to
identify the petitioner and has also denied the suggestion of the Addl.
PP that the petitioner was the person who had committed the robbery.
8. 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 regular bail.
9. Accordingly, on petitioner furnishing a bail bond in the sum of
Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of
the Trial Court, petitioner shall be released on bail, if not required in
any other case. Petitioner shall not do anything which may prejudice
either the trial or the prosecution witnesses.
10. The petition is allowed in the above terms.
11. Order dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
FEBRUARY 28, 2019
'rs'
