High CourtsSingle Bench

Talib vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi

Delhi High Court · Decided on 9 June 2025 · Citation: (2025) 06 DEL CK 0593

HON’BLE JUDGES
Girish Kathpalia, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 120B, 394, 397, 411 · Arms Act, 1959 — Section 27, 54, 59
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application N0. 1402 Of 2025 & Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 17907 Of 2025 & Criminal Miscellaneous Application (Bail) No. 1268 Of 2025
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

12 paragraphs · 393 words

Girish Kathpalia, J

CRL.M.(BAIL) 1268/2025

1.

The accused/applicant seeks interim bail in this case on the ground that he has to get his house repaired. But keeping in mind the overall circumstances reflected from regular bail application, learned prosecutor submits fairly that the regular bail application may be considered today instead of taking up the interim bail application. Accordingly, learned counsel for accused/applicant does not press this application and the same stands disposed of.

BAIL APPLN. 1402/2025

2.

The regular bail application is scheduled to be listed on 29.07.2025. But in view of above mentioned submissions, at request of both sides the regular bail application is preponed to this day. I have heard learned counsel for the accused/applicant and learned prosecutor for the State.

3.

The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No.254/2022 of PS Preet Vihar for offence under Section 394/397/411/120B/34 IPC & 27/54/59 Arms Act.

4 Broadly speaking, the case set up by prosecution is as follows. The accused/applicant alongwith two of his accomplices committed robbery of Rs. 56,000/- cash and three mobile phones at the branch office of Muthoot Fincorp Bank in Shankar Vihar. In the course of the alleged robbery, the robbers used pistols and also assaulted the staff with pistol butts. Trial is already in the process and all material witnesses stand examined.

5.

In the above backdrop, learned counsel for the accused/applicant contends that this is fit case for bail because the co-accused Triptesh @ Pravesh has already been granted bail by the Roster Bench vide order dated 19.03.2025 (copy whereof is at pdf 32).

6 Learned prosecutor opposes the bail application on the ground of seriousness of allegations.

7.

Admittedly, co-accused Triptesh @ Pravesh has already been granted bail by the roster bench. Also admittedly, the role ascribed to the accused/applicant is similar to the role ascribed to Triptesh @ Pravesh. In this regard I have examined order dated 19.03.2025 of the Roster Bench.

8.

Considering the above circumstances, the bail application is allowed and the accused/applicant is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. Pending application stand disposed of.

9.

Copy of this order be immediately sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for being conveyed to the accused/applicant.