Krishan Murari v. State

$~20 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ BAIL APPLN. 1049/2016 KRISHAN MURARI ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Gurpreet Singh, Adv.

versus STATE ..... Respondent Through Mr.M.P. Singh, APP.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

O R D E R

% 20.05.2016 Crl.M.A. 8333/2016 (Exemption) Application is allowed subject to just exceptions. Bail Appln. 1049/2016 Arguments heard.

Status report has been filed by the State.

The present application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for the grant of regular bail in FIR No.0140/2016, under Section 398 IPC and Sections 25/54/59 Arms Act, Police Station Bawana.

As per FIR, the allegations levelled are that when the complaint along with driver were returning to Narela, their vehicle was

intercepted by three persons on a motorcycle. One boy was having country made pistol.

Another boy tried to remove the keys of the vehicle. The boy having pistol came to the complainant and tried to snatch the bag containing Rs.1.50 lacs.

Noise was raised by the complainant and the boy carrying country made pistol was caught by the complainant.

Name of the said boy was revealed as Guddu @ Azad.

The other boy ran away from the spot along with his third associate. Later on, during investigation, it was revealed that the real name of Guddu @ Azad was Krishan Murari i.e. the petitioner-herein. It is argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 08.03.2016.

The investigation is almost complete and the petitioner is no more required for custodial interrogation.

On the other hand, learned APP for the State has argued that the petitioner was caught red handed while committing robbery along with his associates. The other co-accused are still at large. The bail has been opposed on the ground that the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses in case he is enlarged on bail.

In the facts and circumstances, the application is allowed subject to petitioner furnishing the personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. However, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation as and when required. He is directed not to leave the country without prior permission of the Court concerned. He is further directed not to tamper with evidence or influence the prosecution witnesses.

The application is disposed of accordingly.

P.S.TEJI, J MAY 20, 2016 dd