Order 22

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SHRI ANIL ANTIL; ASJ 04, PHC, NEW DELHI
SC No.
FIR No. 300/2019
u/s 394/395/397/342/412/120-B/34 IPC & 27/54/59 Arms Act.
PS Naraina
State Vs. Shanu
17.01.2022
Matter taken up through Video Conferencing pursuant to the
Notification / Order No. 896/RG/DHC/2021 dated 30.12.2021 recently issued
by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in view of the sudden spurt and spike in
Covid 19 cases, whereby it was directed that all the matters be taken up
through VC till 15.01.2022. Accordingly, matter is taken up through VC.
File taken up today on an application as filed on behalf of
applicant/accused Shanu under Section 439 Cr.P.C for seeking Regular bail
, which is listed for today.
Present Sh. Shakir Sabir, learned counsel for the applicant/ accused
Shanu through VC.
Sh. S.K.Kain, learned Addl. PP for the State through VC.
Reply to the application already filed.
It was argued by learned counsel for the applicant/accused
that he is in judicial custody since 08.09.2019 ; charge sheet of the case
has been filed and charge has been framed ; accused is not required for
the purpose of further investigation ; that the complainant Smt. Sushma
(PW-1) and Smt Zubeda (PW-2 ) have already been examined and they
both have not supported the case of prosecution ; both the witnesses
have failed to identify the accused as the perpetrator of the case crime
and the remaining witnesses are police officials.
It is further argued that applicant/accused is a man of young age ;
belongs to a respectable family and not involved in any other case and no
useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind the bars for the
unlimited period. It is, therefore, prayed that applicant/accused Shanu be
-- 1 of 6 --
admitted to regular bail.
On the other hand, bail application is opposed by the learned Addl.
PP for the State mentioning that the accused Shanu is involved into a
heinous and serious offence of committing the day light robbery ; the trial
of the case is at initial stage and other cited prosecution witnesses are
yet to be examined. However, during arguments, it was fairly conceded
by the prosecution that complainant Smt. Sushma (PW-1) and another
eye witness Smt Zubeda (PW-2) of the prosecution were examined and in
their deposition before the court, they both had not identified the
applicant/accused.
Heard and record perused.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, taking note of the
custody period, his clean antecedents, and the fact that two material
witnesses i.e. complainant and eye witness of the prosecution have failed
to identify the present applicant ( Shanu ) and due to suspension of
regular court work, it will take considerable time in examination of other
witnesses, who are police officials, accordingly, the application for
seeking regular bail of applicant/accused Shanu is allowed and he is
admitted to regular bail on his furnishing a Personal Bond in the sum of
Rs.30,000/- with one surety of the like amount subject to following
conditions :-
1) That the accused shall furnish mobile number, in his bail bond and
to the concerned IO/SHO against receipt, and the same shall be kept
operational at all times during the period of his bail so that he can be
contacted at any time.
2. That the accused shall not try to tamper with or influence any
prosecution witness in any manner whatsoever during the period of his
bail, in this case.
3 That the accused shall not indulge in any similar offence while on
bail.
Application stands disposed of accordingly.
Matter be put up on date already fixed in the matter. Intimation in
-- 2 of 6 --
this regard with copy of order be sent to Jail Supdt. for necessary
compliance.
Copy of order be given dasti to learned counsel for applicant/accuse
and IO.
Order be up loaded on the official website.
(Anil Antil)
Addl. Sessions Judge-04,
New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts
New Delhi/17.01.2022
-- 3 of 6 --
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ANIL ANTIL; ASJ 04, PHC, NEW DELHI
SC No. 02/2020
FIR No. 300/2019
u/s 394/395/397/342/412/414/120-B/34 IPC
& 27/54/59 Arms Act.
PS Naraina
State Vs. Mohd. Razi
17.01.2022
Matter taken up through Video Conferencing pursuant to the
Notification / Order No. 896/RG/DHC/2021 dated 30.12.2021 recently issued
by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in view of the sudden spurt and spike in
Covid 19 cases, whereby it was directed that all the matters be taken up
through VC till 15.01.2022. Accordingly, matter is taken up through VC.
File taken up today on an application as filed on behalf of
applicant/accused Mohd. Razi under Section 439 Cr.P.C for seeking
Regular bail , which is listed for today.
Present Sh. Wiqar Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicant/ accused
Mohd. Razi through VC.
Sh. S.K.Kain, learned Addl. PP for the State through VC.
Reply to the application already filed.
It was argued by learned counsel for the applicant/accused
that he is in judicial custody since 07.09.2019 ; charge sheet of the case
has been filed and charge has been framed ; accused is not required for
the purpose of further investigation ; that the complainant Smt. Sushma
(PW-1) and Smt Zubeda (PW-2 ) have already been examined and they
both have not supported the case of prosecution ; both the witnesses
have failed to identify the accused as the perpetrator of the case crime
and the remaining witnesses are police officials.
It is further argued that applicant/accused is a man of young age ;
belongs to a respectable family, has clean antecedents and not involved in
any other case and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him
-- 4 of 6 --
behind the bars for the unlimited period. It is, therefore, prayed that
applicant/accused Mohd. Razi be admitted to regular bail.
On the other hand, bail application is opposed by the learned Addl.
PP for the State mentioning that the accused Mohd. Razi is involved into
a heinous and serious offence of committing the day light robbery ; the
trial of the case is at initial stage and other cited prosecution witnesses
are yet to be examined. However, during arguments, it was fairly
conceded by the prosecution that complainant Smt. Sushma (PW-1) and
another eye witness Smt Zubeda (PW-2) of the prosecution were
examined and in their deposition before the court, they both had not
identified the applicant/accused.
Heard and record perused.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, taking note of the
custody period, his clean antecedents and the fact that two material
witnesses i.e. complainant and eye witness of the prosecution have failed
to identify the present applicant ( Mohd. Razi ) and due to suspension of
regular court work, it will take considerable time in examination of other
witnesses, who are police officials, accordingly, the application for
seeking regular bail of applicant/accused Mohd. Razi is allowed and he
is admitted to regular bail on his furnishing a Personal Bond in the sum of
Rs.30,000/- with one surety of the like amount subject to following
conditions :-
1) That the accused shall furnish mobile number, in his bail bond and
to the concerned IO/SHO against receipt, and the same shall be kept
operational at all times during the period of his bail so that he can be
contacted at any time.
2. That the accused shall not try to tamper with or influence any
prosecution witness in any manner whatsoever during the period of his
bail, in this case.
3 That the accused shall not indulge in any similar offence while on
bail.
Application stands disposed of accordingly.
-- 5 of 6 --
Matter be put up on date already fixed in the matter.
Intimation in this regard with copy of order be sent to Jail Supdt. for
necessary compliance.
Copy of order be given dasti to learned counsel for applicant/accuse
and IO.
Order be up loaded on the official website.
(Anil Antil)
Addl. Sessions Judge-04,
New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts
New Delhi/17.01.2022
-- 6 of 6 --