Yogender v. The State

$~19 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ BAIL APPLN. 830/2017 YOGENDER ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Naresh Kaushik, Adv.

versus THE STATE ..... Respondent Through Mr.Kewal Singh Ahuja, APP with Insp.Narender and SI Vijay Kumar, PS Burari.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

O R D E R

% 18.05.2017 Arguments heard.

The present application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for the grant of regular bail in FIR No.383/2016, under Sections 307/392/397 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act, Police Station Burari. As per FIR, the allegations levelled are that the complainant Monty was dealing in his ancestral business of petting pigs. He had left his pigs in a plot situated in Kamal Vihar near pump house, Burari for grazing and went to home at Garhi, Burari. At about 7.00 p.m. when he came back at the said plot, he found that an EECO Van was parked and two persons were walking across his pigs. He went near the said persons and suddenly accused Yogender put his revolver on the body of the complainant and extended threat not to shout. In the meanwhile, two more persons from said Van came out and loaded

four pigs.

In the meanwhile, grandfather of the complainant came and started shouting.

Those two accused persons had fired at the grandfather of the complainant and fled away, however the accused Yogender was apprehended at the spot.

Argument advanced by the counsel for the petitioner is that all the allegations are false and nothing has been recovered from the accused. It is further submitted that the accused is behind the bars since 05.08.2016.

The charge sheet has already been filed and the case is at the stage of framing charge and no fruitful purpose would be served to keep the accused behind the bars. It is apparent from the record that the petitioner/accused is behind the bars since 05.08.2016. The charge sheet has already been filed and the case is pending for framing of charge before the trial court. It is apparent that the conclusion of trial is likely to take time and no fruitful purpose would be served to keep the accused behind the bars for an indefinite period.

In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, the petitioner/accused is admitted to bail on furnishing the personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. The accused is directed not to tamper with the evidence and influence the prosecution witnesses. He is further directed not to leave the country without prior permission of the trial court concerned.

Before parting with the order, this Court would like to place it on record by way of abundant caution that whatever has been stated hereinabove in this order has been so said only for the purpose of

disposing of the prayer for bail made by the petitioner. Nothing contained in this order shall be construed as expression of a final opinion on any of the issues of fact or law arising for decision in the case which shall naturally have to be done by the Trial Court seized of the trial.

The application is accordingly dismissed.

P.S.TEJI, J MAY 18, 2017 dd