Sh. Pramod Kumar vs State

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J

The petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No. 27/2018 under Sections 392/394/34 of the IPC registered at Police Station Sarai Rohilla, Delhi.

Subsequently, Sections 411/120-B of the IPC have been added. Status report has been filed and the same is taken on record.

Allegations against the petitioner are that the complainant was going in a small goods van when three persons on a motorcycle came in front of

above said van and stopped it. It is contended that thereafter they started beating the complainant and made him sit on the motorcycle between two of

them and third persons ran away with the goods van of the complainant carrying the goods. Later, the complainant raised noise and two accused

persons were apprehended on the spot.

As per the prosecution, the petitioner is the one who has planned the whole thing and third persons had run away along with the goods van of the

complainant.

The case of the prosecution is that two persons who were apprehended, initially named one Raju and subsequently when they were confronted with

the CCTV footage, they changed their stand and admitted that it was the petitioner who was on the motorcycle.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He submits that there is no recovery from the petitioner

and there is nothing on record to connect the petitioner with the subject offence except the alleged disclosure statement of the co-accused. Learned

counsel for the petitioner submits that the other three co-accused persons have been admitted to regular bail and the petitioner has been declined bail

solely on the ground of his alleged involvement in the other case. He submits that the petitioner has already been admitted to bail in those cases and

has been falsely implicated even in them cases.

The petitioner has been in custody since 23.05.2018. Investigation is complete and chargesheet has been filed. The vehicle has already been

recovered.

Apart from the alleged disclosure statement and the alleged CCTV footage which shows that the petitioner was sitting on the motorcycle, there is

no other evidence to connect the petitioner with the other co-accused who have been admitted to bail.

Without commenting on the merits of the case and perusal of the record shows that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of regular bail.

Accordingly, on petitioner furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned

trial court, petitioner shall be released on bail, if not required in any other case. Petitioner shall not do anything which may prejudice either the trial or

the prosecution witnesses.

The petition is disposed of in the above terms.

Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.