Order 11

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: SC 190/2024
STATE Vs. Tejbir @ Teju and Ors. (Bail Vijay@ Vijay Mota)
FIR No. 86/2024
u/s 397/394/34 IPC & 25/54/59 Arms Act
PS (Harsh Vihar)
06.06.2026
Regular bail application.
Present: Sh. Pradeep Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
None for the applicant.
ORDER
1. Matter has already been argued by Mr. C S Tyagi and Mr. Vibhor
Tyagi, Ld. Counsel for the applicant in presence of IO SI Deepanshu and put up
for orders for today
2. This is an application for regular bail filed on behalf of
accused/applicant Vijay @ Vijay Mota. It is averred that the applicant is in
custody since 25.01.2024 and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is
averred that the present applicant has been admitted on interim bail on 13.08.2025
which was further extended on 25.09.2025 due to disease of Tuberculosis and
later on surrendered on 15.10.2025. It is further averred that during interim bail,
no allegations against the applicant regarding extended threats to the witnesses
have been levelled. It is further averred that co-accused Tejveer Singh has already
been granted bail vide order dt. 04.03.2024. The other co-accused Vachan Kumar
has been discharged. It is further averred that as per the rukka, alleged incident
occurred on 09.01.2024 at about 11:30 PM and complainant/injured has been
medically examined on 10.01.2024 at about 12:40 PM after 12 hours of delay. It
is further averred that complainant Virender Prashad has failed to identify the
present applicant during examination in chief. Later on, he identified the applicant
-- 1 of 4 --
--2--
when the Ld. APP has drawn his attention towards the applicant.
3. Reply to this application has been filed as per which, upon receipt of
DD No. 01A dt. 10.01.2024, ASI Vaibhav Kumar, along with HC Shashank
reached at the spot, Diwan Complex, Gali No. 4, Harsh Vihar, Delhi, where it was
found that the victim had already been taken to GTB Hospital, Delhi. Thereafter,
IO reached at GTB Hospital, where he met the victim, Virender who was
undergoing treatment vide MLC No. B/398/02/24 dt. 10.01.2024. The victim
stated that he resides at the above-mentioned address as a tenant and is employed
in a private job. On 09.01.2024 at about 11:30 PM, he was returning on foot to his
residence from Jaipur carrying his bag. When he reached the gate of the lane
situated near Aggarwal Sweets, Mandir Wali Gali, Bank Colony, Harsh Vihar,
after passing through the Mandoli Jail Road boundary, two unknown boys
approached him and attempted to snatch his bag. When he resisted, he got into a
scuffle with them. During the scuffle, one of the two boys assaulted him on his
stomach with a sharp knife-like object, after which both unknown boys fled from
the spot. It is contended that he went to his residence and informed his landlord
about the incident. His landlord took him to GTB Hospital, Delhi, for medical
treatment. He requested legal action against the unknown boys who had
attempted to snatch his bag and caused injuries to him. From the statement, the
MLC, and the circumstances, an offence U/s 394/397/34 IPC was found to be
made out and FIR No. 86/24 U/s 394/397/34 IPC was registered at Police Station
Harsh Vihar. During the course of investigation on 26.01.2026 accused Vijay @
Vijay Mota was arrested on the basis of secret information received from an
informer. On the instance of accused Vijay @ Vijay Mota, the knife used in the
-- 2 of 4 --
--3--
commission of the offence was recovered. The complainant correctly identified
the accused Vijay @ Vijay Mota during the TIP.
4. Arguments have been heard. Material on record perused. Submission
considered.
5. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant was not
identified by the complainant Virender at the first instance and he was only
identified in the Court upon suggestion of the Ld. Additional PP. It is also argued
that long time has passed since the dismissal of the last bail application and trial is
likely to take more time. Reliance has also been placed upon the case of
Vickki
Yadav @ Vikas Yadav Vs. State of U.P. decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India on 25.05.2026 stressing upon the need for speedy trial.
6. On the other hand, Ld. Additional PP assisted by IO has opposed the
bail application stating that the allegations against the accused are serious in
nature and threatening of witnesses cannot be ruled out. It is also argued that the
applicant is the main accused who caused grievous injuries to the complainant by
use of knife while committing robbery. It is also argued that the examination in
chief of the complainant has been deferred and he is yet to be discharged.
7. This Court finds that as per the material on record, it is the applicant
who used the knife against the complainant. Hence, he cannot claim parity with
the co-accused. Perusal of record shows that a considerable time has lapsed since
dismissal of his previous bail application without much progress in trial.
-- 3 of 4 --
--4--
However, the Court was also vacant for a considerable period of time. The
examination of the injured is yet to be completed. In case the applicant is released
from custody then threatening of witness cannot be ruled out. Moreover, the
applicant is having more than 20 previous involvements. He is running in custody
in many of them. It is not known what purpose would be served even if bail is
granted in this case. Moreover, it is apprehended that, if released, he may get
involved in other such offences again.
8. Therefore, this court does not find any ground to grant bail to
accused/applicant Vijay @ Vijay Mota at this stage.
9. Consequently, the application stands dismissed.
10. Copy of the order be sent to Jail Supttd. for information of the
accused.
11. Copy of the order be given ‘dasti’ to Ld. Counsel for the applicant, as
prayed.
(Dr. Sumedh Kumar Sethi)
ASJ-05/SHD/KKD Courts
Delhi/06.06.2026
-- 4 of 4 --