Delhi High Court
Kanhaie Jha @ Kishan vs State on 3 May, 2019
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 03.05.2019
+ BAIL APPLN. 823/2019
KANHAIE JHA @ KISHAN ..... Petitioner
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Omkar Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondent : Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, Addl. PP for the State
with SI Anuj Kumar
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No. 234/2017 under
Sections 392/397/34 of the IPC read with Sections 27/54/59 of the
Arms Act, registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar.
2. It is submitted that the charge has been framed against the
petitioner under Sections 392/395/412/34 and no charge under the
Arms Act has been framed against the petitioner.
3. Allegations in the FIR are that the complainant had gone to
make certain recoveries of money for his business and had received
Rs. 11 lakhs from his customers and when he was coming back on his
scooty, four boys on three motorcycles came and stopped his scooty
and thereafter they started fighting with him. It is alleged that the bag
containing Rs. 11 lakhs was stolen/snatched.
4. As per the prosecution, the petitioner, when apprehended in
some other case, confessed to the offence and his call details record
also establishes his presence at the spot of the incident.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has
been falsely implicated. He submits that there is no incriminating
evidence to connect the petitioner with the subject offence. He further
submits that both the eye-witnesses have been examined before the
trial court and both of them have failed to identify the petitioner as
one of the four boys who had stolen/snatched the money bag.
6. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner had earlier been
granted interim bail by the trial court but the same was cancelled as
the petitioner had failed to surrender before the trial court within the
stipulated time. He further submits that the petitioner had failed to
surrender as he had gone to his hometown where his daughter had
fallen ill and he could not surrender within time.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all other co-
accused have already been enlarged on bail and only because
petitioner had earlier not surrendered within the stipulated time, he
has been denied bail.
8. Without commenting on the merits of the case and keeping in
view the totality of 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.20,000/- 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. Petitioner shall furnish the details of his permanent residential
address and mobile number to the Investigating Officer and in case of
any change of address or contact number, he shall duly intimate the
IO.
11. Petition is allowed in the above terms.
12. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MAY 03, 2019
'rs'
