Sonu v. State

Delhi High Court · 24 Jul 2017 · 2017:DHC:3844

Sangita Dhingra Sehgal

Crl. M. B. No. 590/2017 in CRL.A. 340/2017

2017:DHC:3844

criminal petition_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appellant's bail application during the pendency of his appeal against conviction for robbery with a deadly weapon, citing his major role in the crime and multiple prior cases.

Full Text

Crl. M. B. No. 590/2017 in CRL.A. 340/2017 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Crl. M. B. No. 590/2017 in CRL.A. 340/2017 Sonu .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Biswajit Kumar Patra, Advocate.

VERSUS

STATE ....Respondent
Through: Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP for the state with
ASI Jaichand, PS- Mukherjee Nagar.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL O R D E R
24.07.2017 Crl. M. B. No. 590/2017

JUDGMENT

1. By the present application filed under Section 389(1) of Cr. P.C., the applicant, inter-alia, seeks grant of Regular Bail during the pendency of appeal regarding FIR No. 593/2014 registered under Sections 392/397/411 of the IPC at Police Station Mukherji Nagar, Delhi. The applicant has undergone a period of over 2 years and 4 months in judicial custody.

2. The applicant has been convicted under sections 392/397 IPC by the Trial Court vide order dated 16.01.2017 wherein he has been sentenced to 5 years of imprisonment for the offence punishable u/s 392 IPC and 7 years of imprisonment for the offence punishable u/s 397 IPC.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant must be granted bail during the pendency of trial as he did not misuse the regular bail which was granted by the Trial Court and had surrendered when he was ordered to do so. 2017:DHC:3844

4. On the converse, Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP for the State relied upon the status report and contended that the applicant had a prime role in the robbery and that he is involved in various other cases, thus, the present case is not fit for grant of bail.

5. The submissions of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant as well as the submissions of learned Additional Public Prosecutor have been heard and the impugned order dated 16.01.2017 has also been perused.

6. The order dated 16.01.2017 of the Trial Court states as under:-

“2 Prosecution examined Harpreet Singh as PW-1. He supported his complaint Ex.PW-1/A and deposed that on 10.01.14 he was standing near Mukherjee Nagar complex along with his friend Shivam and Shaan. They were waiting for someone. At about 8:30 PM three boys on pulsar approached them. He was not knowing those boys. The accused present in the court brandished blade towards him and snatched his mobile phone make Nokia C3 and also too out his purse containing money. Accused handed over the sim to the witness. When Harpreet demanded back his mobile phone, the accused threatened him with the blade and said that he would kill him case phone is demanded. Thereafter accused sonu fled away with his associated. Witness has identified his mobile phone as Ex. P1 and also the motorcycle as Ex.P2. xxxxxx xxxxxxx 17 Keeping in view the submissions and the facts of the case I found that in this immediately after the incident call at 100 number was made on the basis of which DD No.77B Ex.PW3/A was recorded. Police reached the spot where PW-1 met them and made complaint and when he appeared in the witness box he also fully supported the prosecution case and

identified the accused as the person who removed his wallet from his pocket. He also stated that accused fled away after taking his mobile phone but returned the sim. This testimony of PW-1 is also corroborated by PW-5 Shivam Kapoor except that he was not able to identify the accused. The accused has alleged that he has given a loan of Rs.700/- to the complaint which he demanded back but I found that there is nothing on record to support the contention of accused even there is no such cross-examination to PW-5 that accused demanded Rs.700/- which he has given to him and instead of returning the amount he got him falsely implicated. It is also pertinent to mention here that there is also recovery of mobile phone belonging to complainant from the possession of accused when he was arrested on 10.06.2014 regarding which there is no explanation as how mobile phone Ex.P[1] became in his possession. So far as recovery of mobile phone is concerned both PW-6 and PW-7 proved and established this fact beyond doubt and there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony. Keeping in view the above discussion I am of the considered view that prosecution has fully proved and established the fact that accused has robbed PW-1 by brandishing blade a deadly weapon. Therefore, I held the accused guilty and convicted him for the offence punishavle u/s 392/397 IPC”

7. It has emerged from the impugned order that the applicant had a major role in the crime as he was the one who robbed the mobile and purse of the victim and also threatened him with a sharp blade. It also needs to be kept in mind that the accused/applicant is involved in six other cases whose details are given in the status report which is reproduced as under:- “Further it is worth to mention here that Petitioner is previously involved in 6 cases except the present case which details are: (1). FIR No. 56/07, U/s 324IPC (2). FIR No. 269/13, 354D/506/509 IPC and 12 POCSO (3). FIR No. 475/13 U/s 324/451 IPC (4). FIR No. 477/13 U/s 324/34 IPC (5). FIR No. 473/14, U/s 324/34 IPC, (6). FIR No. 438/14, U/s 356/379/34 IPC, all are P.S. Mukerjee Nagar”

8. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant in light of the above facts and circumstances. Resultantly, in the considered opinion of this Court, the present application filed by the applicant is dismissed.

JUDGE JULY 24, 2017 gr//

Sonu v. State

AI Summary

Full Text

JUDGMENT

Contact Us for a Free Consultation