Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J.
Kala Ram @kamlesh And Other - Appellant
Versus
State And Other - Respondent
Bail Application No. 3693 of 2021 and Crl.M.A. 16147 of 2021
Decided On : 07-10-2021
Bail - Offences under Sections 392/34 IPC - [Section 438 Cr.P.C] - [392/34 IPC] - The court discussed the parameters for granting anticipatory bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and considered the seriousness of the offence, the nature of investigation required, the likelihood of the petitioner's absconding from justice, the antecedents of the accused, and chances of the petitioner tampering with evidence or threatening the witnesses. The court found that the petitioner, who was evading arrest and involved in multiple cases, was not entitled to the benefit of bail in the event of arrest. Custodial interrogation was deemed necessary for unearthing the plans hatched by the petitioner and the co-accused and for the recovery of money.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought bail in an FIR registered for offences under Sections 392/34 IPC. The complainant, a cash delivery boy, was allegedly robbed of Rs. 32.5 lacs at gunpoint by two persons on a scooty.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, who was evading arrest and involved in multiple cases, was not entitled to the benefit of bail in the event of arrest. Custodial interrogation was deemed necessary for unearthing the plans hatched by the petitioner and the co-accused and for the recovery of money.
Issues: The main issues were the petitioner's eligibility for anticipatory bail, the seriousness of the offence, the likelihood of absconding, and the petitioner's antecedents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the seriousness of the offence, the nature of investigation required, the likelihood of the petitioner's absconding from justice, the antecedents of the accused, and chances of the petitioner tampering with evidence or threatening the witnesses in determining the eligibility for anticipatory bail.
Final Decision: The application for bail was dismissed, and custodial interrogation of the petitioner was deemed necessary.
JUDGMENT
Subramonium Prasad, J. - This application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of bail to the petitioner in the event of arrest in FIR No. 240/2021 dated 07.07.2021, registered in Police Station D.B.G. Road for offences punishable under Sections 392/34 IPC.
2. Shorn of details, the facts, leading to the instant bail application, are as under:
a) The instant FIR has been registered on the complaint of one - Chintu Gupta S/o of Sh. Ram Gopal Gupta, who states that he has been working as a cash delivery boy with one - Sunil Harjai. It is stated that the complainant was engaged by another person namely Nitesh Jain, who is known to Sunil Harjai. It is stated that on 07.07.2021 at about 11:30 AM, he got a call from Nitesh Jain to collect a sum of Rs. 32.5 lacs from one - Tonu Modi's having its office at C-45/5, 1st Floor, Lawrence Road Industrial Area, Delhi. It is stated that as per the instructions from Nitesh Jain, the complainant collected the said amount of money from the said address and kept it in a bag while he was going towards his destination near a Jeevan Mala Hospital, New Rohtak Road, Delhi. It is stated that two persons came on a Red & Black Coloured TVS scooty without any number plate and stopped their scooty near the motorcycle of the complainant. It is stated that the person riding the scooty was wearing a black colour T-shirt and the pillion rider was wearing a purple colour T-shirt. It is stated that the two persons tried to snatch the bag from the complainant and when the complainant resisted, they pushed the complainant and the pillion rider pointed a pistol like weapon on the complainant and threatened him to hand over the bag. It is stated that the amount of Rs. 32.5 lacs, complainant's keys and his Aadhar Card was taken by the two persons and they both fled away from the spot. Subsequently, the instant FIR No. 240/2021 has been registered at Police Station D.B.G. Road for offences punishable under Sections 392/34 IPC.
b) The petitioner filed an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C being Bail Application No. 2415, before the Sessions Court, seeking anticipatory bail. However, the same was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Electricity) - 01, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi vide order dated 28.09.2021. The learned ASJ has observed that the petitioner has the previous involvements. It is also stated that the co-accused - Ravi Gupta, who is stated to be the pillion rider, gave details of the plan hatched by both of them before the commission of the present crime. It is also noticed by the learned ASJ that the co-accused has given a detailed statement laying out the specific role of the Kala Ram @Kamlesh (petitioner herein) in the commission of the crime.
3. The petitioner, thereafter, filed the instant bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C before this Court for grant of bail to the petitioner in the event of arrest. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised the following contentions:
i. That no location charts have been prepared by the investigating agency to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence;
ii. That no sketch of area has been prepared;
iii. That the identification test parade of the co-accused was sought for only after 20 days of arrest;
iv. That the petitioner was driving previous scooty and he did not use the said weapon as stated in the complaint;
v. That there are no CCTV footages of the alleged incident;
vi. And lastly, that the complainant was working with Nitesh Gupta only for two month and it is yet not known that the said amount was there in the bag or not;
4. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that merely on the strength of a disclosure statement of the co-accused, the petitioner cannot be denied anticipatory bail. For this proposition, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon an Order of this Court in Bail Application No. 1435/2010 dated 20.08.2021 case titled as Manoj Rana vs. State. He further states that
The seriousness of the offence, the likelihood of absconding, and the petitioner's antecedents are crucial factors in determining eligibility for anticipatory bail.
The court emphasized the need to balance individual liberty with the interests of society and highlighted the importance of carefully evaluating the facts of the case before granting anticipatory bai....
The main legal point established is the careful consideration of the nature of accusations, antecedents of the accused, and the possibility of tampering with witnesses in granting anticipatory bail.
The discretion for granting anticipatory bail should be exercised with care and circumspection, and the nature and gravity of the accusation, the antecedents of the applicant, and the possibility of ....
The main legal point established is the need to balance the protection of personal liberty with the requirements of the investigation when considering a request for anticipatory bail.
The seriousness of the offences, the accused's active involvement, and the likelihood of the accused repeating the offence if released are crucial factors in determining bail applications.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
