The severity of the allegations, non-recovery of the stolen amount, and the involvement of absconding co-accused persons are crucial factors in determining the grant of bail.

JUDGMENT :

BRIJESH SETHI, J.

1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of the bail application u/s. 439 CrPC filed by the petitioner Laxmi Narayan Sharma in FIR No. 000160/2019, u/s. 379 IPC, P.S. Lahori Gate, Delhi.

2. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for bail on the ground that petitioner is innocent and falsely implicated. He has clean antecedents. It is submitted that the present FIR was registered on 27.06.2019 on the complaint of one Mr. Vimal Kumar who was working as a cashier in the shop of one Mahavir Singh against unknown persons alleging that a bag containing some important documents and a sum of Rs. 12 Lakhs was stolen from his room at H.No. 4712, 3rd Floor, Cloth Market, Fatehpuri, Delhi on 20.06.2019 at around 5.00 to 7.00 a.m. As per the complaint, the petitioner was sharing accommodation with the complainant as both of them were working in the shop of Mahavir Singh. The petitioner was arrested by the police on 28.07.2019 when he came to Delhi from his native place Bikaner.

3. It is next submitted that co-accused Abhishek Singh in his disclosure statement has disclosed that the petitioner has informed him about the cash and accordingly they had planned to commit theft along with co-accused Anshul Rathoor @ Monti, Rashid, Vijender @ Viju, Vicky Panwar and Lateer. It is further submitted that after almost one month from the date of registration of the FIR, statement of complainant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 18.07.2019 wherein he made improvement and stated that when he and his friends checked the room on 29.06.2019, an amount of Rs. 79,31,000/-was found to be missing from a white bag kept in the room for purchase of grains. Thus, it was ultimately alleged on 18.07.2019 that a total amount of Rs. 91,31,000/-was stolen. The name of the petitioner had appeared there for the first time.

4. It is next submitted that in the charge-sheet, it is alleged by the police that it has recovered an amount of Rs. 21,500/- from the co-accused Abhishek Singh out of the entire stolen amount of Rs. 91,31,000/-. Police, in fact, has concocted a story that huge cash amount was kept by Mr. Mahavir Singh to purchase the grains even in complete violation of the finance Bill, 2017 which prohibits cash transaction of more than 2 Lakhs. The police has acted as henchmen of Mr. Mahavir Singh during the entire investigation and arrested several persons including the petitioner and extorted money from them on the pretext of investigation of the present case. It is further submitted that in daily newspaper of Bikaner, Rajasthan dated 02.07.2019 and 03.07.2019, a news was flashed that the policemen of Delhi Police posted with PS Lahori Gate, Delhi were involved in unlawful extortion from the youths of Churu on the pretext of investigation of the E-FIR No. 000160/2019. The additional Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Churu had formed a team and arrested the policemen of Delhi Police and later on they were admitted to bail by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur on 08.08.2019.

5. It is next submitted that bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by the Ld. MM, Tis Hazari Courts vide order dated 23.08.2019 in the most unlawful manner and by wrongful observing that the allegations made in the FIR were so grave. Aggrieved by the impugned order of Ld. MM, petitioner filed a bail application before the Ld. ASJ, Tis Hazari but Ld. ASJ ignored all the facts of illegal extortion by the police and dismissed the bail application on 15.10.2019 in the most mechanical manner and without application of judicial mind.

6. It is lastly submitted that petitioner is a poor man and has nothing to do with the alleged offence. Petitioner is languishing in jail since 28.07.2019 even when the investigation of the case qua him is over and the charge-sheet has been filed. It is, therefore, prayed that petitioner be released on bail, in the interest of justice.

7. Ld. APP for the state has opposed the bail application on the ground that all