Delhi High Court
Mickey vs State on 16 January, 2019
$~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 16.01.2019
+ BAIL APPLN. 3073/2018
MICKEY ..... Petitioner
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. T.S.Varun, Adv.
For the Respondent : Ms.Kusum Dhalla, Addl. PP for the State with
Insp.Rajesh, DIU/Shahdara
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No. 336/2016 under Sections
392/397/411/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station
G.T.B.Enclave.
2. The allegations in the FIR are that the complainant, who is employed
in a factory where work of copper wires takes place, was on duty when one
of the co-accused Gautam stayed behind in the morning on the ground of
working over time. It is alleged that at about 9.36 AM there was a knock at
the gate of the factory and Gautam looked outside and stated that some of
his acquaintances had come. Gautam opened the door and two persons
walked in with muffled faces. It is alleged that they fought with the
complainant, pushed him into an inner cabin and overpowered him. One of
the persons was holding a country made pistol and the other was holding a
knife. Person holding the country made pistol pointed the pistol at him on
which he got scared. Then the other person holding the knife along with
other accused Gautam started removing the goods of the factory. 1500 kgs
of wires and scrap was removed. Petitioner is alleged to be the one who is
alleged to have brandished the knife and removed the goods.
3. Learned APP opposed the Bail and submits that there has been
recovery from the house of the petitioner of some of the stolen articles as
also some scrap and money and the weapon of offence was also recovered
on his disclosure.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has
been falsely implicated. Learned counsel submits that the CCTV footage
relied on by the prosecution does not corroborate the version of the alleged
offence. Learned counsel submits that as per the allegation in the FIR two
accused, petitioner and Ashish are alleged to have entered the premises and
committed the offence. Learned counsel submits that the CCTV footage
shows that the two accused did not enter the premises together and they
were not in muffled face or carrying any weapon.
5. Learned counsel further submits that the offence is alleged to have
been committed at approximately 9.30 am in the morning when the locality
was full of other workers etc and there is no possibility of someone
committing the offence in open. Learned counsel submits that there was
enough time during the night when the co accused Gautam was on duty and
the offence could have been committed at that point of time.
6. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner has been in custody
since 24.09.2016 and the trial is likely to take some time.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that co accused Gautam
has already been admitted to bail by this Court by order dated 10.12.2018
in Bail Appln.2011/2018 titled "Gautam Chauhan vs. State".
8. Without commenting on the merits of the case and keeping in view
the totality of facts and circumstances and also the fact that petitioner has
been in custody for over two years and four months, 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 disposed of in the above terms.
11. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
JANUARY 16, 2019
rk
