Delhi High Court - Orders
Mohammad Sikander vs The State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 17 November, 2022
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~53
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 3000/2022
MOHAMMAD SIKANDER ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rahul Malik, Advocate
Versus
THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for State
Mr. Mohd. Usman, Mr. Neeraj Kumar & Mr.
Ashutosh Kumar Pandey, Advocates for
Complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
ORDER
% 17.11.2022
1. The present application has been filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 1102/2021 under Sections 380/427/454/506/34 of IPC registered at Police Station Mehrauli, Delhi.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. According to him, the present applicant did not play any specific role in the commission of the instant case, it is only on the basis of his presence, the case has been registered against the applicant. He further submits that the main accused in the instant case since is the father of the present applicant and the complainant wanted to implicate all the family members of the main accused, therefore, the applicant has been framed in the instant case. He, Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRATIMA Signing Date:22.11.2022 19:13:35 further submits that when the applicant was before the trial Court seeking anticipatory bail, the concerned police officials filed an application for issuance of NBWs against him. In pursuance to order passed by this Court on 10.10.2022 and on 04.11.2022, the applicant appeared before the Investigating Officer and has furnished relevant information. While referring to the Status Report filed by the State, learned counsel for the applicant points out that even according to investigating agency, the CCTV footage produced by the complainant only shows the presence of one person breaking the locks and removing the goods from the Dargah Hazrat, Mehrauli, Delhi, and he is not that person. According to him, it is thus seen that merely on the basis of the presence of the applicant, he cannot be framed in the instant FIR. He, however, undertakes to cooperate with the further investigation of the case. With respect to applicant's previous involvement in connection with FIR No. 97/2010 for the offence punishable under Sections 186/353/332/279/34 of IPC at Police Station Saket, Delhi, he points out that in terms of the order dated 28.04.2016, the applicant has only been convicted for offence punishable under Sections 186/332/353 of IPC and was sentenced with payment of fine. He explained the circumstances under which the said case was registered.
3. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the complainant opposed the present bail application and submit that the applicant does not deserve for protection of anticipatory bail. According to them, the applicant is not revealing truthful information to the police. Therefore, the further investigation of the case cannot be taken forward. They specifically submit that the applicant was seen in the CCTV footage to pass on certain stolen articles to different person and the identity of the said person to whom he Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRATIMA Signing Date:22.11.2022 19:13:35 passed on the stolen articles has not been disclosed by the present applicant in his interrogation. It is, therefore, prayed that the present application for anticipatory bail should be dismissed.
4. In rejoinder submissions, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not aware, as to who was the person accompanying with Dilshad. He further submits that the applicant only knows Dilshad and he has disclosed the name of Dilshad. He further submits that the applicant is not aware about the whereabouts of Dilshad, therefore, the applicant cannot be expected to disclose the name of any other person, who was present on the place of occurrence.
5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. In the instant FIR, the offence is under Sections 380/427/454/506/34 of IPC. Except offence under Section 454 of IPC, all other offences are punishable upto 7 years sentence. Prima facie the ingredients of the offence under Section 454 of IPC are not made out against the present applicant. The father of the present applicant, namely, Rous Mohammad, who had broken the locks and removed the goods from Dargah was already arrested on 16.06.2022 and thereafter he was granted regular bail by the concerned Court. The anticipatory bail application of the present applicant was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 08.09.2022 and it is thereafter, the application for issuance of non-bailable warrant was filed against him. The applicant did appear before the Investigating Officer in terms of the directions issued by this Court.
7. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and without commenting anything on the merits of the case and keeping in view the fact Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRATIMA Signing Date:22.11.2022 19:13:35 that the alleged stolen articles were only few CCTV cameras, devices, wifi modem, PU Switch, lock, door lock etc., this court finds it appropriate to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹15,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer/SHO of the concerned Police Station and also subject to the further following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall join and cooperate with the investigation as and when he is directed to do so.
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly try to get in touch with the complainant or any other prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence.
(iii) In case of change of residential address/contact details, the applicant shall promptly inform the same to the concerned Investigating Officer/SHO.
(iv) The applicant shall abide by the conditions under Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C.
8. The bail application is disposed of in the above terms.
9. Needless to state that nothing observed hereinabove shall amount to an expression on the merits of the case and shall not have a bearing on the trial of the case.
10. Dasti.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J NOVEMBER 17, 2022 p'ma Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRATIMA Signing Date:22.11.2022 19:13:35