Full Judgment
$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:
28. 02.2019 BAIL APPLN. 300/2019 BHARAT KUMAR GOSWAMI versus STATE ........ Petitioner
..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner
: Mr. V. Madhukar and Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Advs. For the Respondent: Mr. Hirein Sharma, Addl. PP for the State with SI B.P. Singh CORAM:-
"HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
(ORAL) 1.... Petitioner
seeks regular bail in FIR No.234/2017 under Section 392/3
Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 27/
of the Arms Act registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Delhi.
2. The subject FIR was registered on the complaint of one Rishab Jain who contended that he collected approximately Rs. 11 lakhs from a trader and was taking it to his shop kept in a red colour bag which was kept in a scooty. It is alleged that when he along with his colleague were going on the road they were stopped by four boys on a motorcycle. They started fighting with them and two of them showed BAIL APPLN. 300/2019 Page 1 of 3 a revolver and at gunpoint snatched the scooty as well as the bag containing money. He further in the complaint states that he saw those four boys and could identify them if they are produced before him.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He submits that the petitioner was initially arrested in a case under the Arms Act and thereafter is alleged to have made a disclosure statement that he was involved in the subject offence.
4. Learned counsel further submits that there is no evidence connecting the petitioner with the subject offence except the disclosure statement. He further submits that the currency which is alleged to have been recovered from the petitioner, has not been connected to the currency which was allegedly stolen as neither the currency is identifiable nor the numbers were marked/noted.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged recovery of scooty at the pointing out of the petitioner is also suspect as the alleged recovery is through a joint disclosure statement of the petitioner along with other co-accused and recovery has been made from a public place.
6. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has already been acquitted in one of the cases and in all other cases, in which he is alleged to be involved, he has already been enlarged on bail. BAIL APPLN. 300/2019 Page 2 of 3 7. Learned counsel further submits that the complainant has already been examined before the trial court and he has failed to identify the petitioner and has also denied the suggestion of the Addl. PP that the petitioner was the person who had committed the robbery.
8. Without commenting on the merits of the case and keeping in view of the totality of the facts and circumstances, I am satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of regular bail.
9. 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 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.
10. The petition is allowed in the above terms.
11. Order dasti under signatures of the Court Master. SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J FEBRUARY28 2019 ‘rs’ BAIL APPLN. 300/2019 Page 3 of 3