Rajesh @ Dildil v. State (Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi)
$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 840/2020 RAJESH alias DILDIL ..... Applicant Through:
Mr.Vishal Raj Sehijpal, Adv.
versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through:
Ms.Meenakshi Chauhan, APP for the State alongwith SI Akash Rawat, PS North Rohini
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
O R D E R
% 05.05.2020 CRL.M.A. 6080/2020 & CRL.M.A. 6081/2020 (Exemptions) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
BAIL APPLN. 840/2020 This application has been heard by video conferencing. The present bail application has been filed by the Applicant seeking interim bail for a period of two weeks in case FIR No. 144/2016 registered at Police Station North Rohini.
The ground for seeking bail is that the Applicant, prior to his arrest, was working as a small-time vegetable vendor. His family comprises of an old aged widow mother, wife, two sons and three daughters. The eldest daughter is married. He prays for bail in order to earn a livelihood for the sustenance of his family during the Covid-19 pandemic. This application is strongly opposed by the State contending that there are more than hundred cases in which the Applicant has been involved. The allegations against the Applicant are also of grave nature.
On an enquiry being made, the learned counsel for the Applicant fairly submits that the elder son of the Applicant is eighteen years of age. As noted hereinabove, the bail is sought for a period of two weeks on a premise that the Applicant would go back to his earlier occupation of earning by vegetable vending. In this period of pandemic and with restrictions in place, I do not find any merit in the said submission. Applicant's son is aged 18 years and should be therefore, capable of earning sustenance for the family. Further, looking into the nature of the allegations made against the Applicant; the fact that on an earlier occasions, the Applicant had misused the facility of bail granted to him; and also the number of cases that are registered against the Applicant, I do not find it to be a fit case to grant bail to the Applicant for the present. The bail application is accordingly dismissed. NAVIN CHAWLA, J MAY 05, 2020/rv/sd