Final Order 1

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Bail Application no.1692/22
FIR no.324/22
PS Delhi Cantt.
Under Section: 379/411 IPC
State Vs. Sunny
26.09.2022
Present: Sh.Ashok Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Sh. Pradeep Nagar, Ld.counsel for the applicant/accused
Sunny.
IO/SI Sanjay Indora is present in person.
This is the bail application under Section 439 Cr. PC moved
on behalf of applicant/accused Sunny.
Reply to the bail application filed.
Arguments heard. Record perused.
It is submitted on behalf of applicant/accused that the
applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has nothing
to do with the alleged offence. That nothing has been recovered from the
possession of the applicant/accused and the alleged recovery has been
planted upon him. That the applicant is a labourer and sole bread earner of
the family. That the investigation qua the applicant/accused is already
complete and he is not required for custodial interrogation. It is prayed that
the applicant/accused may kindly be enlarged on bail.
On the other hand bail application is strongly opposed by
Ld.Addl. PP for the state.
I have considered the submissions made by Ld.counsel for
the applicant/accused and Ld. Addl. PP for the state.
In the present case the applicant/accused is alleged to have
committed theft of two fountain nozzle at Parade Road, Delhi Cantt. New
-- 1 of 3 --
2.
FIR no.324/22: PS Delhi Cantt.
Under Section: 379/411 IPC
State Vs. Sunny
Delhi. The applicant/accused is in JC since 16.09.2022. Recovery has
already been effected and hence the applicant is not required for any
custodial interrogation. Trial is going to take time and the
applicant/accused can not be put behind the bars for indefinite period.
Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI,
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2178 OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.
5650 of 2011) has held that “the object of bail is to secure the appearance
of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object
of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be
considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an
accused person will stand his trial when called upon”.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, period of
custody already undergone, recovery has already been effected and the
applicant/accused is not required for further custodial interrogation, I am
inclined to allow the present bail application under Section 439 Cr. PC
moved on behalf of applicant/accused Sunny. The applicant/accused
Sunny is admitted to bail on furnishing bail bond in the sum of
Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of
Ld.MM/Duty MM/Link MM and subject to the following conditions:
(a)The applicant shall furnish to the Investigating Officer/
S.H.O., a cell phone number on which the applicant may be contacted
-- 2 of 3 --
3.
FIR no.324/22: PS Delhi Cantt.
Under Section: 379/411 IPC
State Vs. Sunny
at any time and shall ensure that the number is kept active and
switched-on at all times;
(b)The applicant shall not tamper with evidence nor
otherwise indulge in any act or omission that is unlawful or that would
prejudice the proceedings in the pending matter;
With these observations the bail application moved on
behalf of applicant/accused Sunny is disposed off.
Copy of this order be given dasti to Ld.counsel for
applicant/accused.
(Devender Kumar Jangala)
ASJ-05, New Delhi District
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi
26.09.2022
-- 3 of 3 --