Hasnain Khan v. State ( NCT Of Delhi)

$~1.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 2541/2015 and CRL.M.(BAIL) 8195/2015 HASNAIN KHAN ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Sohrab Khan & Mr. Ajit Kumar Mishra, Advocates.

versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through:

Mr. Ashish Dutta, APP along with SI Akhilesh Bajpayee, PS - EOW, for the State.

Mr. Ghanshyam Sharma, Advocate for victims/ investors.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

O R D E R

% 12.07.2016 The petitioner has applied to seek bail in anticipation of his arrest in relation to FIR No.758/2015 under Sections 420/ 468/ 471/ 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Jyoti Colony/ Nagar, Delhi. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, firstly, is that the primary accused Saleem has already been granted bail. According to the case of the prosecution, the complainant has alleged that he was having transactions with Saleem, whereunder he was supplying jeans to Saleem for

the purpose of finishing. The complainant has alleged that after finishing the goods, Saleem was required to forward the goods as per the instructions of the complainant to other parties. So far as the applicant is concerned, the case of the prosecution is that Salim, in turn, forwarded the goods to the applicant. The case of the prosecution is that at the instance of Salim, some of the goods have been recovered from the applicant. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant maintains complete record of goods received by him for job work which are returned after the job assigned to the applicant is completed. The same were forwarded to other similar job workers who were hired for the jobs in the process of manufacture.

Learned counsel submits that the applicant has already joined the investigation and he has been examined at length by the police on several occasions. Learned counsel submits that the records maintained by the applicant have also been provided to the police. Mr. Katyal submits that though the applicant has joined the investigation, he has not disclosed from whom he has received the goods. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that so far as the allegation regarding recovery is concerned, the same is not proved inasmuch as the factory was locked and the applicant was not present when the alleged recovery was made.

Having heard learned counsel and considering the fact that the main accused Saleem has already been granted bail and that the applicant has joined the investigation, in my view, no useful purpose will be served by taking him in custody at this stage.

Accordingly, the application is allowed. In case of his arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail upon his furnishing bail bond in the sum

of Rs.10,000/- with one surety to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence in the case or contact any of the prosecution witnesses.

The petition stands disposed of.

VIPIN SANGHI, J JULY 12, 2016 B.S. Rohella