Sudhir Tyagi v. The State Govt of NCT of Delhi

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 11.09.2017 on the complaint of the petitioner, FIR No. 619/2017 under Section 381 IPC was registered wherein the petitioner alleged that his labour Guddu had stolen Digi Track System from his godown/store. During investigation of the said case, the accused Guddu Kumar was apprehended and stolen system was recovered from him and upon interrogation, he disclosed that the said system was stolen by him BAIL APPLN. 2353/2017 2017:DHC:8789 atthe instigation of co-worker Ranbir. During the further course of investigation, theInvestigating Officer /H.C. Jitender Rana reached the above-said godown on 20.09.2017 and found the dead body of Ranbir and found the co-accused Sachin Tyagi and Lokender atthe spot. Upon interrogation Sachin Tyagi disclosed that deceased Ranbir was beaten up by tying his hands and legs and that the petitioner alongwith co-accused Bunti had played an active role. Hence the present FIR bearing No. 643/2017 under Sections 302/34 IPG was registered at the instance of the 10 against the petitioner ahd^^Lv(5t|ieftosused ^,

3. The petitioner preferred ah kpplication^foy anticipat6i?y::bail before the Court of,Additional. Sessions; iudge and the •sarhe was dismissed vide Order dated 10.11.2017.

4. Mr. B.S. Rpia, learned foijfthe petitioner contended that the petitioner has bee^<faisej| implicated in the present case and apprehends his immedi^^mt|st|:i%|4^exc^^ for the disclosure Statement of the otheK''|^s§|fe|^sons namely Sachin and Lokender, there is no other incriminating evidence atall against the petitioner; the electi:6McV:e\f^ the prosecution is relying upon i.e. mobile phone conversation between the petitioner and co-accused Sachin Tyagi does connect the petitioner with the commission of the alleged offence; that hence in the aforementioned circumstances discretionary relief of anticipatory bail be extended to the petitioner as prayed for.

5. Per contra, Mr. Akshai Mallik, learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application of the BAILAPPLN. 2353/2017 Page 2 of[5] o petitioner and submitted tliat sufficient evidence has come on record against the applicant not only in the form of statements of the co-accused and recovery of the wires used in commission of crime and other material with which the deceased was given beatings, but also in the form of CDRs of the mobile phone of the petitioner which clearly points towards the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence; that during the course of investigation efforts.were rnade.to join the applicant in the investigation but he did not join the same and absconded; that the grant ofanticipatory bailjto &vpetitioner could be pr^udicial to the case ofprosecutipniias lie may mfitience the Witnesses and tamper withthe evidencesjnd hence,his petition mayberdismissed.; I v-rVi? 1 ^ ' •i i '

6. I have heard the learned' Cpunsel for- the parties and perused the material placed onrecordl ' ' 7"-

7. As per the records, while theJ(plC.(|;.Jitender Rana was carrying out investigation in ^resp^t W tlte bearing No.0619/2017 registered at the instariceiOf^e^||||i6^ the accused Guddu was apprehended on 22.09.2017 who thereafter disclosed that he had Stolen the petitioner!^,idevice;;%)m,|iis;^;|0^wn on the instigation of one Ranbir. On being informed by the petitioner that deceased Ranbir had fled away, the 10 reached the petitioner's godown to inquire and found the body of deceased Ranbir. Co-accused Sachin Tyagi and Lokender who were present at the spot at that time, upon inteiTOgation disclosed that deceased Ranbir had died due to beatings given to him by plastic pipe by Sudhir Tyagi, Bunti and Lokender and that when the petitioner and co-accused Bunti found that Ranbir had died, they fled away from the spot.

8. The Status Report reveals that, during the investigation the weapons used for the commission of the alleged offence have been recovered. Further as per the CDR's of the mobile phone of the petitioner, he was present at the spot at the time of the alleged incident. Also the recording of the mobile phone conversation between the petitioner and co-accused Sachin Tyagi. reflects that it was the petitioner who had given instructions to the other coaccused persons to dispose. pf.gfe,j3od^ of the deceased. Hence prima facie, the role ofth^ipetitidher inttie entire incident assumes importance and to furtnei^:uhearth the truth behind the commission ofthe alleged offence, tfe|^itioner may be required for custodial interrogation. There is also every possibility that the petitioner may influence the witnesse^fandtamper with,the prosecution evidence.

9. the process contemplated under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has already been initiated againstMm^b^the Tcial^^dult. •• '> • a---j "p-u IG. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case; and while perusing the allegations levelled against the petitioner, and considering the nature and gravity of the alleged offence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage.

11. Accordingly, the petition for grant of anticipatory bail stands dismissed. BAIL APPLN. 2353/2017 Page 4 of[5]

12. Before parting with the above order, it is made clear that anything observed in the present petition shall not have any bearing on the merits ofthe case duringtrial. DECEMBER\2., 2017 SANG GRA SEHGAL.J ! I'- T.'., •i ? '•