Delhi High Court
Bharat Sharma vs The State on 13 May, 2022
#
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Order reserved on: 10.05.2022
Order delivered on: 13.05.2022
+ BAIL APPLN. 309/2022 & CRL.M.A. 1672/2022
BHARAT SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Mohit Mathur, Sr. Advocate with
Mr.Manoj Kohli, Advocate.
versus
THE STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Dr. M.P. Singh, APP for the State
along with Inspector Bineet Kumar
Pandey, P.S. Mundka.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
ORDER
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.
1. This is an application under Section 438 Cr.PC filed on behalf of the
petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.193/2021 under Sections
408/394/397/365/302/201/34 of IPC at Police Station Mundka.
2. In brief, the case was initially registered under Section 408 IPC on the
complaint of one Sanjay Kumar, who alleged that he is working as
transporter in the name of Om Roadlines and on 22.03.2021, he got loaded
Signature Not Verified
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:14.05.2022
14:34:37
18176 kgs of steel coils costing about Rs.28,62,386/- in truck bearing No.
HR-38 T 8482. The truck driver Ravi Yadav (deceased) did not reach the
destination at Wazirpur and Jahangirpuri and was untraceable. During
investigation, the truck was located in empty condition. Further, accused
Deepak was arrested who disclosed about commission of offence along with
Sher Bahadur, Rajesh @ Kana and Rakesh @ Bakra.
Accused Sher Bahadur as well as petitioner Bharat Sharma
communicated on the night of 22-23.03.2021. The accused also identified the
godown of Bharat Sharma wherein the steel was unloaded. The owner of the
godown Suraj Bhan Singh further disclosed that the said godown was rented
out to Bharat Sharma in March, 2021 on asking of one Arun and the godown
was vacated just within one month.
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner
had joined investigation and had been even granted interim protection for
some period by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. It is also contended
that the only allegations against the petitioner are as of receiver of stolen
goods. The petitioner is further stated to be having clean antecedents and is a
law student. The charge-sheet is stated to have been filed.
Signature Not Verified
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:14.05.2022
14:34:37
4. On the other hand, the application has been vehemently opposed by
the learned APP for the State. It is submitted that the accused were in touch
on the night of commission of offence and the steel was unloaded at the
godown of the petitioner which has been vacated within a month of renting
of the godown. It is also submitted that the CDRs details duly support the
connectivity between the co-accused and the petitioner. It is also contended
that the petitioner failed to cooperate during investigation and the case
property is yet to be recovered. The charge-sheet is admitted to have been
filed qua co-accused but the investigation against the petitioner is pending
since he was on interim protection.
5. I have given considered thought to the contentions raised. It may be
noticed that the case property is yet to be recovered and as such the custodial
interrogation of the petitioner is required. The fact that the petitioner did not
cooperate in investigation also dis-entitles him for grant of any protection at
this stage. Considering the gravity of the offence and the role of the accused,
no grounds for anticipatory bail are made out.
For the foregoing reasons, the application is dismissed.
(ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA)
JUDGE
May 13, 2022/A
Signature Not Verified
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:14.05.2022
14:34:37
