Imran Hashmi v. State (Through Sho Ps Timar Pur)
$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 1074/2025 IMRAN HASHMI .....Petitioner Through:
Mr. Yogesh Sharma and Ms. Pratima Ravi, Advocates versus STATE (THROUGH SHO PS TIMAR PUR) .....Respondent Through:
Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for the State
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
O R D E R
% 09.05.2025 CRL.M.A. 8051/2025 (exemption) & CRL.M.A. 8052/2025 (exemption from filing Status Report filed before Trial Court) 1.
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2.
Applications stand disposed of.
BAIL APPLN. 1074/2025 3.
By way of the instant bail application, the applicant seeks grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR bearing No. 195/2009, registered at Police Station Timarpur, Delhi for the commission of offences punishable under Section 379/473/411/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter 'IPC').
4.
Issue notice. Mr. Manoj Pant, the learned APP accepts notice on behalf of the State.
5.
Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that on 24.10.2009, the The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
complainant had reached the police station and made a complaint, wherein he stated that on 21.10.2019, he had parked his motorcycle bearing registration No.DL-8SAC-8962, make Pulsar, red colour, near his house. It is alleged that at about 9:00 PM, the complainant had found that his motorcycle had been stolen. On the said complaint, the present FIR was registered, and investigation was carried out. It is stated that on 22.11.2009, the accused persons Ramjan @ Pehlwan, Imran and Javed were arrested in FIR No.198/2009, registered at Police Station Crime Branch, Delhi for the offence punishable under Sections 399/402/411 of IPC and at the instance of these accused persons, the stolen motorcycle in question, belonging to the complainant, was recovered from their possession. 6.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant argues that the applicant was enlarged on bail vide order dated 23.11.2009, however, thereafter, he could not appear before the learned Trial Court. The learned counsel argues that the applicant was not aware about the pendency of the present case against him, since he is not a resident of Delhi and the accused/applicant was arrested after he was declared a proclaimed offender. He argues that the accused/applicant is in judicial custody since 20.11.2024, and therefore, he be released on regular bail. 7.
The learned APP for the State on the other opposes the present bail application and argues that the applicant/accused is not a resident of Delhi and he may jump the bail, if so granted to him. 8.
This Court has heard arguments addressed on behalf of both the parties and has perused the material available on record. 9.
Concededly, the applicant had been earlier granted regular bail. Thereafter, pursuant to his re-arrest after being declared Proclaimed The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
Offender, he has been in judicial custody since 20.11.2024. 10.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that the accused/applicant was not aware about the pendency of the present case and also considering the fact that trial will take some time to conclude, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the applicant herein, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one surety of the like amount, after verification of the address of the accused/applicant as well as his surety, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Successor Court/Link Court/Duty Judge concerned on the following terms and conditions:
i) The applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the concerned Court.
ii) In case of change of residential address/contact details, the applicant shall promptly inform the same to the concerned Court and IO/SHO concerned.
iii) The applicant shall appear regularly before the learned Trial Court.
11.
Accordingly, the present bail application stands allowed and is disposed of.
12.
It is, however, clarified that nothing expressed hereinabove shall tantamount to an expression of opinion on merits of the case. 13.
The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J MAY 09, 2025/ns Click here to check corrigendum, if any The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.