Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.
Riyasat Ali – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Bail Appln. 347 of 2023
Decided On : 06-02-2023
BAIL APPLICATION - Grant of Bail under Section 439 of Cr. P.C. - The court emphasized the basic rule of the criminal justice system as bail and not jail, and considered the absence of recovery from the accused and clear antecedents in granting bail.
Fact of the Case:
The bail application was filed seeking grant of bail in a case of theft of an e-Rikshaw and mobile phone under Section 379 IPC. The charge sheet had already been filed, and the petitioner was in custody since 11.06.2022.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the absence of recovery from the accused, clear antecedents, and emphasized the principle of bail over jail, granting bail to the petitioner with specific conditions.
Issues: The issues involved the denial of bail, pending MLC and FSL reports, and the potential unavailability of the petitioner for trial if released on bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the basic rule of the criminal justice system as bail and not jail, and considered the absence of recovery from the accused and clear antecedents in granting bail.
Final Decision: The petitioner was admitted to bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/-, with specific conditions to ensure availability and compliance.
JUDGMENT
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral)
CRL.M.A. 2867/2023 (Exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
BAIL APPLN. 347/2023
1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 of Cr. P.C. seeking grant of bail in case FIR No. 015527/2022 registered at PS Wazirabad under Section379 IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge sheet has already been filed under sections 379/328/34 IPC and the petitioner is in custody since 11.06.2022. He further submits that no recovery of alleged stolen articles and vehicle of offence was effected and the case set up against the petitioner is only on the basis of disclosure of co-accused.
3. The perusal of the FIR indicates that the FIR was lodged for theft of an e-Rikshaw of the complainant as well as his mobile phone which is make techno IMCI No.356500546463129, 35656054643137. The case set up by the prosecution is that the petitioner along with the co- accused committed the theft of a mobile phone, phone lid and E- rikshaw from the complainant by giving intoxicated juice to him.
4. Learned APP for the State submits that the bail application was dismissed by the learned Trial Court on the ground that the MLC and FSL report are awaited and the petitioner had refused to join the TIP proceedings. Learned APP for the State further states that if the petitioner is released on bail he may not be available for trial.
5. I have considered the submissions. It is a settled proposition that the basic rule of the criminal justice system is bail and not jail. This court and the Supreme Court have said this time and again that the courts must enforce this principle in practice. It has to be borne in mind that denial of bail amounts to deprivation of personal liberty.
6. In the present case, a charge sheet has already been filed and it is an admitted case that no recovery was affected from the accused.
Further, the antecedents of the accused are also clear. Therefore, in my considerable opinion, the accused cannot be kept behind bars only because the MLC and FSL reports are awaited.
7. In the totality of the facts and circumstances, the petitioner be admitted to bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/-, with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court subject to the following conditions:
a) the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case;
b) the petitioner shall provide his/her mobile number(s) to the Police In charge of the case and keep it operational at all times;
c) the petitioner shall drop a PIN on the Google map to ensure that his location is available to the Police In charge; and
d) in case of a change of residential address and/or mobile number, the petitioner shall intimate the same to the Investigating Officer/ Court concerned by way of an affidavit.
8. With the above directions, the bail application stands disposed of.
9. A copy of the order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for information and compliance.
AI
The decision to grant bail was influenced by the FSL report, lack of recovery, and the period of incarceration of the accused.
Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception, and the purpose of keeping the accused in detention during the trial is to secure attendance, not punishment.
Presumption of Innocence - A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty.
The court has the discretion to grant bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the age and criminal history of the accu....
The decision emphasized the importance of evidence and identification in determining bail eligibility in theft cases.
The circumstances of the case, lack of recovery of stolen articles, and delay in implicating the applicant were key factors in granting bail.
The nature of the stolen property and the circumstances of the case are crucial factors in determining bail eligibility.
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
