Suresh Kumar @ Toni vs State(Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi)
2019 Latest Caselaw 1350 Del

$~24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                Judgment delivered on: 06.03.2019
+      BAIL APPLN. 224/2019
       SURESH KUMAR @ TONI                            ..... Petitioner
                                 versus

       STATE(GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)                   ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner :      Mr. Pawan Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondent:        Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for the State with
                           Insp. Bhupesh Kumar

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

                             JUDGMENT

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

1. Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No.147/2018 under Sections 327/34 IPC, Police Station Paschim Vihar. Charge has been framed against the petitioner under Sections 323/365/392/394 read with Sections 34 and 411 IPC.

2. Allegations in the FIR are that the complainant had arranged for cash of Rs.15 lakhs for the purposes of payment to an agent for obtaining visa for Canada. When the amount was being transported in a vehicle, it is alleged that a police came and stopped the persons in the car. Along with one sub-Inspector in uniform, four more Police

Officials in plain clothes were also present. They are alleged to have stolen the entire cash amounting to Rs.15 lakhs besides 1500 US Dollars of the complainant. Petitioner is alleged to be one of the four police officials in plain clothes, who participated in the commission of the offence.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He submits that apart from the alleged disclosure statement of the sub-inspector, co-accused, there is no other material to connect the petitioner with the subject offence. It is further contended that the petitioner had refused to participate in the Test Identification Parade as the petitioner had already been shown to the complainant and other witnesses in the Police Station.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the co- accused has already been enlarged on regular bail. He further submits that there is no material to connect the cash of Rs.5,000/- recovered from the petitioner with the alleged stolen cash as neither was the currency marked nor the numbers noted.

5. Petitioner has been in custody since 15.05.2018.

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

7. 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.

8. Petition is allowed in the above terms.

9. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J MARCH 06, 2019 st