Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 17th December, 2015
TILAK RAJ @ MOLU ….. Applicant
Through: Mr. Manish Bhardwaj, Advocate
Through: Ms. Radhika Kolluru, APP for State
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. The present is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC) praying for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 1088/2015, under Sections 356/34 IPC registered at Police Station- Sarai Rohilla, Delhi.
2. The applicant has been in judicial custody since 19th September, 2015.
3. The charge-sheet in the subject FIR has been filed yesterday i.e. 16th December, 2015.
4. According to the prosecution, the applicant- Tilak Raj, who is an 2015:DHC:10316-DB employee of the complainant in the subject FIR is alleged to have tipped off the co-accused namely Ajay, Mithun, Sunny, Prince and Rakesh that the complainants were carrying a black bag containing cash amounting to Rs. 20 lakhs and 2000$ as well as a mobile and some documents.
5. The prosecution alleges that the co-accused intercepted the complainants on a bike and snatched the said bag containing case as aforestated from them at about 9.10 P.M. on the 12th September, 2015.
6. Upon investigation, subject to the registration of the present FIR, the co-accused Sunny is stated to have been arrested at the instance of a secret informer and Rs. 80,500/- are alleged to have been recovered from him.
7. Another co-accused namely Rajesh, who is stated to be also an employee of the complainants at their shop, was arrested and a sum of Rs. 7,20,000/- was allegedly recovered from him.
8. The case of the prosecution is that the co-accused Rajesh, in his disclosure statement, implicated the applicant herein as a co-conspirator in the commission of the said offence.
9. It is an admitted position that no cash or any other incriminating material has been recovered from the present applicant at this stage.
10. In a landmark decision of the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported as 2012 (1) SCC 40, the Hon’ble Supreme Court crystallized the law in respect of grant of regular bail as under:-
11. Following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra (supra), this Court in Rajat Sharma vs. State of NCT of Delhi reported as 2015 (3) JCC 1493, observed as follows:-
7. A plain reading of the above decision makes it crystal clear that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial. It is further observed that the object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative and that deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment unless it is required to ensure that the accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The Supreme Court further observed that when a person is punished by denial of bail in respect of any matter upon which he has not been convicted it would be contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution except in cases where there is reason to believe that he will tamper with the witnesses. To encapsulate, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that pre-conviction detention should not be resorted to except in cases of necessity to secure attendance at the trial or upon material that the accused will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty.
12. In the present case, it is an admitted position that although the applicant has been charged with a serious offence, the allegations against him have been made on the basis of a disclosure statement of a co-accused namely Rajesh from whom part of the money snatched was recovered.
13. It is further an admitted position that nothing has been recovered from the applicant herein. The applicant has been in judicial custody since 19th September, 2015 and a charge-sheet qua the present applicant has already been filed, as afore-stated.
14. Furthermore, there is no hint or allegation that the accused is a flight risk. The applicant has clean antecedents and is not involved in any previous involvements; and nor is there any material to suggest that he shall not be available to stand trial or that he will influence or intimidate the witnesses or tamper with the evidence, if enlarged on bail.
15. In view of the foregoing, the present bail application is allowed.
16. The applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court subject to the further conditions that:-
(i) He shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any other authority;
(ii) the applicants shall remain present before the Trial
(iii) He shall not try and influence witnesses or tamper with the evidence.
17. With the above said directions, the present bail application is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
18. A copy of this order be given dasti under the signature of Court Master to counsel for the parties.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J DECEMBER 17, 2015 sd