BAIL APPLN./903/2016 of PRADEEP KUMAR Vs THE STATE ( GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+BAIL APPLN. 903/2016PRADEEP KUMAR

..... Petitioner

Through:Mr.Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Adv.

versus

THE STATE ( GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)..... RespondentThrough:Mr.M.P.Singh, APP.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

O R R%14.07.2016

The present application has been filed under Sections 438/482Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

The case of the prosecution as per the FIR in question is that acomplaint had been received from Mr.Hari Om Mittal that one oftheir staff members Mr.Hari Om had gone on 05.03.2016 to get somefabricfromtheirgodownatFirstFloor,WestendPlaza,Kapashera,New Delhi and found that the lock there had beentampered and the seal was torn. It was found that some stock hadbeen missing/burgled. On physical auditing, it came to light that some70,200 metres fabric had been stolen. Based on the same, FIR in

question was registered. On 22.04.2016, supplementary complaintwas given to the effect that from their second godown, 75,863 meterfabric had been stolen. Thus, total 1,46,063 meter fabric worth Rs.onecrore had been stolen from both the godowns.

On 22.04.2016, on receipt of secret information, the goods wererecovered from the godown of Javed situated at Sher Singh’s, TollTax Street, Kapashera, Delhi. Accused Javed disclosed that he alongwith the petitioner had stolen the fabric in question. Accused Javeddisclosed that the petitioner had taken his share of fabric. Duringpolice custody of the co-accused Javed, one sack of fabric was alsorecovered at his instance from Sher Singh’s, Toll Tax Street,Kapashera, Delhi. The petitioner’s anticipatory bail application wasdismissed by the Sessions Court on 29.04.2016. On being searched,the petitioner was not found at his native place.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused therecord.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the co-accused Javed has been granted bail and also no recovery has beeneffected from the petitioner.

In the given facts and circumstances of the case, it is directedthat in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail onhis furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with onesurety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer subjectto the condition that he shall not tamper with the evidence, shall notinfluence the witnesses and shall not leave the country without priorpermission of the court concerned.

The application accordingly stands disposed of.

JULY 14, 2016/dm

P.S.TEJI, J