Delhi High Court
Kamruddin Sheikh @ Sameer vs State on 28 March, 2019
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 28.03.2019
+ BAIL APPLN. 171/2019
KAMRUDDIN SHEIKH @ SAMEER ..... Petitioner
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Kanhaiya Singhal, Ms. Shilpa Goel and Ms.
Heena, Advs.
For the Respondent: Ms.Meenankshi Dahiya, Addl. PP for the
State with SI Neeraj Kumar
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No.334/2017 under Sections
457/380/120-B/34 of the IPC, Police Station Prasad Nagar.
2. The allegations in the FIR are that a factory, where gold
jewellery was manufactured, was broken into on the intervening night
of 19.10.2017 and 20.10.2017 and the theft was discovered on the
following morning at about 11.00 AM.
3. As per the prosecution, CCTV footage and finger prints lifted
from the spot led to discovery of involvement of two of the co-
accused.
4. As per the status report, the material against the petitioner is
that he was using the mobile phone of his father-in-law. As per the
status report the mobile phone of the petitioner was switched off
during the time of the incident i.e. intervening night of 19.10.2017 and
20.10.2017 and the location of the mobile phone being used by the
petitioner during the day of 19.10.2017 was close to the incident site.
Status report indicates that petitioner was in touch with the co-accused
who is seen in the CCTV footage as also with the co-accused whose
finger prints were recovered from the spot. The petitioner is also
alleged to be residing with one of the co-accused. It is alleged that the
petitioner is mastermind behind the whole crime.
5. Leaned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has
been falsely implicated. He submits that the only material against the
petitioner is circumstantial and despite the incarceration of the
petitioner for over one year, no incriminating evidence connecting the
petitioner to the subject offence has been found. He submits that the
petitioner is a young boy of 27 - 28 years of age and has been in
custody since 20.10.2017.
6. Without commenting on the merits of the case and keeping in
view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and the fact
that the petitioner has been in custody since 20.10.2017 and
investigation is complete, charge sheet has already been filed and trial
is likely to take substantial time, 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 prosecution witnesses.
8. Petition is accordingly allowed in the above terms.
9. Order Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MARCH 28, 2019
'rs'
