Delhi High Court
Gaurav vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 20 May, 2019
$~14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 20.05.2019
+ BAIL APPLN. 889/2019
GAURAV ..... Petitioner
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mukul Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amit
Nahata, Mr. Sumit Kumar Mishra and Mr. Pushkar
Mehta, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for the State.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Status report is filed. The same is taken on record.
2. Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No.725/2018 under Sections
186/353/332/307/34 IPC, Police Station Punjabi Bagh.
3. FIR has been registered on the complaint of In-charge of a PCR
Van. It is alleged that information was received that two boys sitting
in a car were misbehaving with some girls. When the PCR reached
the spot, neither the caller nor the girls were found. When they called
back the caller, he gave the number of the vehicle in which the two
boys were allegedly sitting. When the constable of the PCR
confronted the two boys, it is alleged that the petitioner, who was
sitting on the driver's seat abused the constable. When the constable
attempted to remove them from vehicle, the petitioner is alleged to
have driven his vehicle on the constable thereby causing grievous
injuries to him.
4. The Constable is alleged to have suffered multiple injuries and
as per the medical report, the nature of injuries sustained is grievous.
5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner
has been falsely implicated. He submits that no public witness has
been joined in the investigation to corroborate the incident or the
manner in which the petitioner has been arrested. He further submits
that the alleged location where the incident is alleged to have
happened is covered by several CCTV cameras, however, no CCTV
footage has been relied on to corroborate the offence.
6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is a young boy of 25 years of age and has been in custody
since 19.12.2018. He submits that investigation is complete and
chargesheet has already been filed and trial is likely to take substantial
time. He further submits that the petitioner has clean antecedents.
7. Without commenting on the merits of the case and keeping in
view the totality of facts and circumstances and the fact that the
petitioner is a young boy of 25 years of age and has clean antecedents,
investigation is complete and chargesheet has been filed and trial is
likely to take substantial time, I am of the view that the petitioner has
made out a case for grant of regular bail.
8. 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.
9. Petitioner shall not leave the country without the prior
permission of the Trial Court and passport if any, shall be surrendered
to the Investigating Officer, if not already done so. Petitioner shall
furnish his permanent residential address as well as his mobile number
and that of the surety to the concerned Investigating Officer and in
case of any change of address or contact number, he shall duly
intimate the same to the Investigating Officer.
10. Petition is allowed in the above terms.
11. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MAY 20, 2019
st
