Delhi High Court
Roshan vs State on 14 January, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: January 14, 2019
+ BAIL APPLN. 70/2019 & CRL. M.A. 592/2019
ROSHAN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sharma,
Advocate
Versus
STATE .....Respondent
Through: Mr. M.P.Singh, Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent-State
with ASI Sanwal Ram
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
Petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 909/2018, under
Sections 323/365/34 IPC, registered at police station Aman Vihar, Delhi
on the ground that the FIR in question, registered on 15th September,
2018 at 09:00 p.m., is a counter blast to FIR No. 877/2018 registered at
the instance of father of petitioner against complainant of this FIR, which
was registered on 5th September, 2018 alleging theft of jewellery, cash
etc. The worth of jewellery stolen is said to be approximately
₹20,00,000/- and besides it, cash amount of ₹20,00,000/- has been also
stolen.
Counsel for petitioner submits that complainant of FIR in question,
has been named as one of the accused in FIR registered regarding theft. It
is submitted by petitioner's counsel that in the FIR registered regarding
theft, one Gaurav is named, who is absconding. Learned counsel for
petitioner further submits that CCTV footage of incident in question has
been handed over to the police but no investigation in this regard has
been conducted and so, it is a fit case to grant pre-arrest bail to petitioner.
Mr. M.P.Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on
behalf of respondent No.1-State and submits that in the FIR registered
regarding theft, nothing incriminating has been found against said
Gaurav, who was recovered on 14th September, 2018 and in his
supplementary statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he has
named petitioner as one of the accused, who had kidnapped and assaulted
complainant to compel him to admit having committed theft. It is
submitted that number of cases are pending against the complainant of
the FIR registered regarding theft and custodial investigation of petitioner
is required for recovery of mobile phone, car and to apprehend co-
accused of petitioner, who are absconding. Learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent-State further submits that according to
complainant of FIR in question, Gaurav was missing, whereas according
to victim he had been kidnapped. It is also submitted by learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State that version put-forth
by victim is duly supported by statement of eye witness and that in the
CCTV footage, said Gaurav is not seen.
Upon hearing and on perusal of FIR of this case, I find that
complicity of complainant in the theft case is prima facie not forthcoming
at this stage. The allegations levelled against petitioner are of serious
nature. In the face of statement made by victim after his recovery, I do
not find it to be a fit case to grant pre-arrest bail to petitioner.
This application is accordingly dismissed while refraining to
comment on the merits of the case.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 14, 2019
r
