The matter has been dragging for more than six years. Even at this stage, the trial is likely to take a long period before reaching any finality: Delhi High Court
BAIL APPLN. 3493/2022
VICKY SINGH@CHIKU vs STATE (GOVT. NCT OF DELHI)
The current bail application was filed as per Section 439 (special powers of High Court or Court of Sessions regarding bail) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 327/2016 filed under Section 381/342/394/397/411/120B/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Kirti Nagar. Bail application before the HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
Indian Penal Code, 1860
| Section 34 | Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. |
| Section 120B | Punishment of criminal conspiracy. |
| Section 342 | Punishment for wrongful confinement. |
| Section 381 | Theft by clerk or servant of property in possession of master |
| Section 394 | Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery |
| Section 397 | Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt |
| Section 411 | Dishonestly receiving stolen property |
FACTS OF THE CASE
The FIR was registered at the instance of Smt. Tejinder Kaur, the complainant alleged that Vinod was employed as domestic help in her house. Vinod along with other co-accused persons committed robbery by entering her house, threatened her with a knife and snatched keys of her almirah and took away Rs.40 lakh cash, one mobile phone and jewellery.
After the registration of FIR, the co-accused Vijay@ Rahul, Raghav, Rakesh, were arrested who admitted commission of alleged offence with other co-accused persons namely, Vinod and Vicky Singh @ Chiku, the current applicant.
The chargesheet was filed on 25.11.2016 and a supplementary chargesheet was also filed on 16.03.2017. The applicant was arrested on 22.12.2016 and since then is in judicial custody as an under trial.
Learned counsel appearing for the applicant contended that the applicant was falsely implicated and has not committed any of the alleged offence. He further states that at the time of commission of alleged offence, the applicant was in his native village Loni, Ghaziabad. The applicant was arrested only on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused persons.
The applicant was in custody as an under trial since last five years, 10 months and 29 days as on the date of filing of the application. The trial is still at the stage of prosecution evidence.
The council of the applicant used the following judgements to support his contentions,
- Shaheen Welfare Association v. Union of India, (1996) 2 SCC 616 where the Hon’ble Apex court held that a protracted incarceration violates an under trial’s right to speedy trial and access to justice.
- Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) SCC OnLine SC 825, the Hon’ble Apex Court has emphasized that the delay in trial and interment for a prolong period as an under trial must be considered while dealing with an application for bail.
The applicant was declared as proclaimed offender on 06.12.2016 after proceeding under section 82 of Cr.P.C.
The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed by the learned Sessions Court through order on 10.02.2020 and the second bail application was dismissed by the learned Sessions Court through order 22.07.2022.
Learned APP for the State opposed the application on the ground that the applicant was declared as a proclaimed offender and there is recovery of gold earrings and rings at the applicant’s instance. She further states that since the accused was arrested only after he was declared as a proclaimed offender. Thus, she points out the likelihood of him jumping the bail again.
JUDGEMENT
The Court acknowledged that the applicant was in custody for more than six years and the matter has been dragging for more than six years. Even at this stage the Court stated that the trial was likely to take a long period before reaching any finality.
The only evidence against the applicant was the disclosure statement made by the co-accused and the alleged recovery of two earrings and two rings recovered at the instance of applicant. It was claimed that the two earrings and two rings recovered from the applicant does not belong to the complainant and were, in fact, purchased by the applicant himself. The Court stated that the strength of the evidence would be tested at the time of trial and final hearing of the case.
The Court made an observation that the maximum punishment provided for the alleged offence in the present case is up to 10 years but the applicant has already undergone more than 50% of the term of imprisonment.
The Court was satisfied that the applicant was entitled for grant of regular bail in the current FIR.
The applicant was therefore, directed to be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond for a sum of ₹25,000 with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/ Duty Metropolitan Magistrate, subject to the terms and conditions laid down by the Hon’ble Court.
The Court stated that all observation made in the present order were only for the purpose of deciding the present application and should not influence the outcome of the trial in any manner.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ADITYA G S.