Shardha Ekka v. State (Govt Of NCT)

$~7 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ BAIL APPLN.1282/2016 SHARDHA EKKA ..... Petitioner Through :

Mr.Shivender Singh, Advocate.

Versus

STATE (GOVT OF NCT) ..... Respondent Through :

Mr.Kamal Kr.Ghai, APP.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

O R D E R

% 11.07.2016 (1) As per Notification No.1078/G-4/Genl./DHC dated 06.07.2016, case is taken up today.

(2) The petitioner seeks regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in Case FIR No.386/15 registered under Sections 365/395/397/412/120B/34 IPC and Section 25/54/59 Arms Act at Police Station Kamla Market. Status report is on record. (3) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner's counsel urged that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 10.09.2015.

Co-accused persons have already been granted regular/anticipatory bail.

The petitioner deserves regular bail on parity. The charge-sheet has already been filed. Learned APP urged that there are serious allegations against the petitioner and more than `45,00,000/- (forty five lacs) out of the robbed amount have been recovered from the petitioner.

BAIL APPLN.1282/2016

(4) Perusal of the charge-sheet reveals that there are serious allegations whereby `1.25 crores were allegedly robbed by the petitioner and his associates using deadly weapons. The robbed amount is stated to have been recovered from the accused persons arrested in this case. `45,70,000/- have been recovered from the petitioner as a part of robbed money. It is alleged that the petitioner was in regular contact on mobile phone with the driver co-accused Sunil Purti on the day of incident i.e.8th September, 2015. The petitioner had allegedly hatched a conspiracy with the driver Sunil Purti and others and used SIM No.8447669762; he is the main conspirator.

The petitioner declined to undergo judicial Test Identification Proceedings.

It is further stated that not a single prosecution witness has so far been examined. There is a possibility of the petitioner to extend threats to the witnesses. (5) The Trial Court has already listed the matter on 16/17 August, 2016 for recording statements of the prosecution witnesses. (6) Since there are serious allegations against the petitioner and specific role has been assigned to him, I find no sufficient reason to enlarge him on bail at this stage particularly when no public witness so far has been examined and huge recovery of more than `45,00,000/- has been effected from him.

(7) The bail application is dismissed.

S.P.GARG, J.

JULY 11, 2016/sa BAIL APPLN.1282/2016