[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Shivam vs State Nct Of Delhi on 31 January, 2026
* I N T H E H I G H CO U RT O F DE L H I AT NE W DE L H I
Reserved on: January 13, 2026
% Pronounced on: January 31, 2026
+ BAIL APPLN. 4367/2025
SHIVAM .....Applicant
Through: Mr. Mohd. Suza Faisal, Adv.
Versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Satish Kumar, APP with Ms.
Upasna Bakshi, Adv.
SI-Pritam Singh and ASI-Sant Kumar
+ BAIL APPLN. 4530/2025
SHIVAM .....Applicant
Through: Mr. Mohd. Suza Faisal, Adv.
Versus
STATE OF NCT DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Satish Kumar, APP with Ms.
Upasna Bakshi, Adv.
SI-Pritam Singh and ASI-Sant Kumar
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
JUDGMENT
1. By virtue of the present bail application(s) under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the applicant seeks grant
of a regular bail in proceedings arising from e-FIR No.80051276/2025 dated
27.05.2025 in BAIL APPLN. 4367/2025 and FIR No.21/2025 dated
01.07.2025 in BAIL APPLN. 4530/2025 registered under Section(s)
303(2),317(2)& 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) as also Section(s)
67,74 &78 of the Metro Railways (Operation and Maintenance) Act, 2002 at
PS.: Metro Police Station (Netaji Subhash Palace), Delhi.
2. As per facts, the said FIR(s) were registered following an incident on
the intervening night of 29/30.06.2025 involving the theft of approximately
32.5 meters of 33KV 1C, 400s.q mm CU (copper) cable between the Mast
no.08/49 to 08/51, which was reported by Traction Power Control (TPC)
Line-7 at approximately 02:51 A.M. The applicant, after his arrest has since
remained in judicial custody.
3. This Court called for the Status Report as also requisitioned the
Nominal roll.
4. Mohd. Suza Faisal, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the
applicant works as a Swiggy delivery boy, and his entire family is dependent
on him as he is the primary bread winner in his family. The learned counsel
also submitted that the applicant has been in judicial custody since his arrest
and the investigation is substantially complete, and continued incarceration
pending trial infringes the applicant's right to personal liberty as guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
5. Per contra, Mr. Satish Kumar, learned APP for the State opposed grant
of bail as 32.5 meters of copper wire was recovered from the applicant after
he was caught red-handed along with co-accused Sameer @ Chooha and
another unknown person on 30.07.2025 outside Herbal Park, Punjabi Bagh,
Delhi, however, another co-accused Nitish has not been arrested yet. The
learned counsel further submitted that the applicant is a habitual offender
with significant criminal antecedents, being involved in at least six other
FIR's register at PS.: Shastri Park, Delhi.
6. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the
learned APP for the State and perused the documents on record including the
Status Report.
7. The issues involved are such that the Metro Railways (Operation and
Maintenance) Act, 2002 are also to be taken into consideration along with the
BNSS. The parameters therein for granting bail require this Court to be
watchful and tread with care and caution.
8. The applicant is a not a fly by night operator but a habitual offender
who has since been active with the very same offences in the recent past. The
offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant herein has
multifarious effects on the Society at large, more so, since the applicant has
put the life and limb of one and all in utter danger. As the applicant is not
guilty of some foolhardy antics, he has no doubt caused immense loss(es) to
the public exchequer. All of the above cannot not be ignored. Considering his
past, it is highly likely that the applicant may get himself involved in another
such act(s) for which he already has multiple FIR's registered against
himself, and which are at different stages of trial.
9. In any event, while granting bail this Court must take into cognizance
the public good versus the private good involved herein. The applicant herein
has been guilty of playing with the lives of the general public. Legally also,
while granting bail, this Court is also to take into consideration the following
factors laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar
vs. Ashis Chatterjee (2010) 14 SCC 496; State of Uttar Pradesh vs.
Amaramani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21 and Deepak Yadav vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh (2022) 8 SCC 559.
10. Moreover, under the existing scenario, it gives rise to grave suspicions
of the applicant taking undue advantage of his being out on bail and/ or
trying to tamper with evidence and/ or witnesses.
11. All the aforesaid factors, both factually and legally, are themselves
sufficient for denying bail to the applicant.
12. Accordingly, the present application(s) are dismissed.
13. Needless to say, the observation made, if any, on the merits of the
matters are purely for the purposes of adjudicating the present application(s)
and shall not be construed as expressions on the merits of the matters.
SAURABH BANERJEE, J.
JANUARY 31, 2026/Ab/aks
