IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused, the lack of evidence for invoking certain offences, and the principles governing the grant of bail.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Mahajan, J.

1. The present bail application has been filed under section 439 Cr.P.C. read with 482 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in FIR No. 209/2023 under section 408/411 IPC (Section 411 was added subsequently), registered at Police Station Karol Bagh, Delhi.

2. The FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint made by the complainant alleging that the petitioner and one person namely Dhanaji Maeitkari, have committed criminal act of cheating, criminal breach of trust, dishonestly receiving stolen property and criminal conspiracy. It is the case of the prosecution that the Petitioner herein approached the complainant for a job of artisan/karigar through one of his known persons and was working as an employee in his shop. On 31.01.2023 one customer came to the complainant's shop and ordered for purchase of 1kg brick of 24 carat gold, as the said stock was unavailable at that time with the complainant, the complainant approached one of his supplier namely Dhanaji Vitthal Jadav to supply the said gold brick and requested him telephonically to handover the same to his employee i.e., the Petitioner herein. Thereafter the Petitioner went to the supplier's shop, took the delivery of the gold brick and retained the same with himself and absconded from work without returning the said gold brick of 1kg which was entrusted to him.

3. Upon inquiry made by the complainant, the complainant got to know that the petitioner herein took undue benefit of the said gold brick and had sold the same to one goldsmith namely Dhanaji Maitkeri who was running his shop in Rohini. After selling the gold brick the Petitioner left Delhi and escaped to his hometown.

4. During the course of investigation, on 06.02.2023 the accused/Petitioner was arrested from Pune, Maharashtra. In his disclosure statement the Petitioner stated that he sold some part of the gold i.e. 13.33 Grams for Rs 76,400 to a karigar at Rohini. The said gold was later on seized by the police. The Petitioner was taken into custody but no property of gold was recovered from him.

5. During further investigation it was found that the Petitioner had switched off his mobile phone and purchased a new mobile phone & sim card to contact his family members. The search warrants to search the house of the Petitioner were issued by the Trial court but the case property could not be recovered.

6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He Submits that the fact of the matter is that the said gold brick was snatched from the Petitioner, thereafter the Petitioner called up the employer/complainant and informed him about the same but the employer instead of believing the Petitioner made a concocted story accusing the applicant of stealing the said gold brick and thereafter fired the accused from the employment.

7. He further submits that there was a considerable delay in filing the FIR as the incident took place on 31.01.2023 and the FIR was registered on 04.02.2023 which shows the prosecution version has been manipulated.

8. The Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits the petitioner is not at flight risk because as soon as the petitioner came to know that the FIR has been lodged against him, he himself duly surrendered before the police authorities which shows the bonafide of the petitioner.

9. He submits that as far as the recovery is concerned, no recovery of gold has been affected from or at the instance of the petitioner. Additionally, a search warrant was also issued to search the petitioner's house but still no recovery of gold was affected.

10. He submits that the investigation is complete and the chargesheet has already been filed by the authorities, but the charges are yet to be framed. Further, 14 witnesses have been cited in the charge-sheet, therefore, the trial is going to be a protracted one.

11. The learned senior counsel submits that against the petitio