Uttam Tyagi vs The State (Nct) Of Delhi on 18 December, 2020

[Cites 9, Cited by 2]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Uttam Tyagi vs The State (Nct) Of Delhi on 18 December, 2020

Bench: Suresh Kumar Kait

$~9
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     BAIL APPLN. 3896/2020
      UTTAM TYAGI                                            ..... Petitioner
                         Through:     Mr. Sanjeev Dagar, Advocate
                         versus

      THE STATE (NCT) OF DELHI                  ..... Respondent
                    Through: Mr. Amit Mahajan, SPP and Rajat
                              Nair, SPP with Mr. Shantanu Sharma
                              and Mr. Dhruv Pande, Advocates

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
              ORDER

% 18.12.2020 The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.

1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner under section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in pursuance to FIR No.52/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 302/147/148/149/188/201/120-B IPC & 27 Arms Act, registered at Police Station Jafrabad, Delhi.

2. While opposing the present petition, learned SPP submits that there is no change in the circumstance since dismissal of the last bail and has fairly admitted that there is no CCTV footage because CCTV cameras were vandalized in a planned manner, therefore they could not get anything.

3. Learned SPP further submits that the incident is of dated 25.02.2020 and FIR was lodged on 26.02.2020, however, he was not named in the said FIR. But he was named in the subsequent statement dated 03.04.2020 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

BAIL APPLN. 3896/2020 Page 1 of 2

4. When this Court asked as to why complainant did not name the petitioner on 27.02.2020, he replied that there is no explanation mentioned in statement dated 03.04.2020.

5. It is not in dispute that there is no CCTV footage or CDR in the present case. DVRs from two cameras were sent to FSL, however, no data could be retrieved.

6. Keeping in view the facts recorded above, without commenting on the merits of the prosecution case, I am of the view that the petitioner deserves bail.

7. Accordingly, he shall be released on bail forthwith on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.20,000/- and a surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court.

8. Petitioner shall not directly or indirectly influence any witness or tamper with the evidence.

9. The Trial Court shall not get influenced by the observation made by this Court while passing the order.

10. The petition is, accordingly, allowed and disposed of.

11. Copy of this order be transmitted to the Jail Superintendent concerned and Trial Court for information and necessary compliance.

12. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.

SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J DECEMBER 18, 2020 Aj BAIL APPLN. 3896/2020 Page 2 of 2

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders