Full Text
Translation output
Bail. Application No.1710/2015 Page 1 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Order: August 24, 2015
Date of Order: August 24, 2015
BAIL.APPLN.1710/2015 & CRL.M.A.12161/2015
ANMOL KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. J.P.Singh, Advocate
ANMOL KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. J.P.Singh, Advocate
VERSUS
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with SI
Sandeep Kumar
Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with SI
Sandeep Kumar
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O R D E R (ORAL)
Crl.M.A.12161/2015 (Exemption)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Bail Appln. No.1710/2015 Petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in FIR No.900/2015 under Section
394/34 IPC registered at Police Station Shahbad Dairy, Delhi while claiming to be innocent.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is a cable TV operator having annual turnover of `40 lac and has no previous involvement and the alleged stolen articles have been recovered from co- accused and that no deadly weapon was used. It was submitted that
2015:DHC:6883 Bail. Application No.1710/2015 Page 2 petitioner is the sole bread-earner of his family and no active role has been attributed to petitioner, and so he deserves pre-arrest bail.
This application is strongly opposed by learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent-State, who submits that the petitioner had facilitated commission of offence in question which is punishable upto life imprisonment or RI for 10 years and fine and that petitioner is named in the FIR and was very much involved in commission of the offence in question. It is submitted that although robbed bag has been recovered but the robbed money has not been recovered as yet and for this purpose custodial interrogation of petitioner is required.
Upon hearing and on perusal of FIR in question and material on record, I find that petitioner was very much party to commission of offence in question and the gravity of offence in question dissuades this
Court to exercise the discretion to grant pre-arrest bail to petitioner as in serious offence like the instant one pre-arrest bail ought not to be granted.
This application is accordingly dismissed while not commenting upon merits of this case, lest it may prejudice petitioner when he seeks regular bail.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
August 24, 2015 vn 2015:DHC:6883
Crl.M.A.12161/2015 (Exemption)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Bail Appln. No.1710/2015 Petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in FIR No.900/2015 under Section
394/34 IPC registered at Police Station Shahbad Dairy, Delhi while claiming to be innocent.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is a cable TV operator having annual turnover of `40 lac and has no previous involvement and the alleged stolen articles have been recovered from co- accused and that no deadly weapon was used. It was submitted that
2015:DHC:6883 Bail. Application No.1710/2015 Page 2 petitioner is the sole bread-earner of his family and no active role has been attributed to petitioner, and so he deserves pre-arrest bail.
This application is strongly opposed by learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent-State, who submits that the petitioner had facilitated commission of offence in question which is punishable upto life imprisonment or RI for 10 years and fine and that petitioner is named in the FIR and was very much involved in commission of the offence in question. It is submitted that although robbed bag has been recovered but the robbed money has not been recovered as yet and for this purpose custodial interrogation of petitioner is required.
Upon hearing and on perusal of FIR in question and material on record, I find that petitioner was very much party to commission of offence in question and the gravity of offence in question dissuades this
Court to exercise the discretion to grant pre-arrest bail to petitioner as in serious offence like the instant one pre-arrest bail ought not to be granted.
This application is accordingly dismissed while not commenting upon merits of this case, lest it may prejudice petitioner when he seeks regular bail.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
August 24, 2015 vn 2015:DHC:6883
JUDGMENT