AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SANJAY VASHISTH, J.
By this common order, both the aforementioned petitions shall stand disposed of.
The instant petitions have been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioners, during the pendency of trial, who have been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:-
| Name of Petitioner(s) | FIR No. | Date | Section(s) | Police Station | District |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anuj @ Anuj Kumar, aged about 21 years, and Deepak @ Anuj Kumar, aged about 23 years | 160 | 11.07.2025 | 324(4), 309(4) of BNS [310(2), 311, 238A of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 added later on, (erstwhile sections 425, 392, 395, 397, 201 of IPC) dated 27.07.2025 and section 25(1-B)(A) of Arms Act, 1959 | Bajghera | Gurugram |
During the night time at about 01.20 AM, on 11.07.2025, incident in question took place and thereupon, on receipt of information from one Gopi (watchman), FIR in the present case was got registered, which reads as under:-
"To SHO Police Station, Bajhgera, Gurugram, Memo Number: 5729 Date: 11-07-2025. Complaint regarding persons suspected to be involved in theft of office materials on dated 11.07.2025 at 01:20 AM. I Vikram Singh sub-divisional Officer, Sub-division New Palam Vihar, serving as Sub-division Officer since 10.05.2023, reports that on 11.07.2025, Mr. Gopi, the watchman (HKRN), informed me at around 04:15 PM that some unknown persons had entered the subdivision office and took away office materials. Sh. Gopi, the security guard (SKRN), was on duty at the Subdivision Officer's office, New Palam Vihar subdivision on 11.07.2025. I, along with other employees, reached the office and found that around 8 PM some unknown persons entered the subdivision officer's office at OP New Patya Vihar. subdivision office. Three persons started assaulting Mr. Gopi chowkinder (HKRN) and then pushed him into the main building. They tied sh. Gopi chowiknder's legs, hands, and mouth, and attacked him with weapons. They locked Sh. Gopi chowkinder in a room and bolted the door. They stole office materials including the supply of Viji, internet router, internet switch, D-LINK switch, Airtel wireless router, UPM, CPU, ATIC cash handling box, ATM swipe machine, rubber stamps, and other materials/documents. They also damaged six cupboard doors and handles. They cut all the wires of the CCTV system and RAPDRP billing system. Therefore, it is requested that an investigation be conducted and a formal case lodged against the unknown persons involved in the above-mentioned corporation material theft. Sub Divisional Officer (OP) New Palam Vihar Sub Division, Gurugram, Mobile no: 7840003575, DAKSHIN HARYANA BULK ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. (A Govt. of Haryana Undertaking)"
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that their alleged involvement rests solely upon the disclosure statement of co-accused, namely Ganesh @ Ganga, which, by itself, is inadmissible in evidence.
Learned counsel further submits that the articles allegedly recovered from the possession of the accused persons, i.e., a screwdriver, certain broken stamps, and a broken cash box, do not, in any manner, incriminate them. It is contended that the alleged recovery has been falsely planted upon the accused persons, particularly when the stamps and cash box were admittedly already in a broken condition. It is argued that there was neither any reason nor occasion for the accused persons to retain such articles in their possession, so as to facilitate their subsequent recovery by the investigating agency.
It is further contended that the screwdriver is an ordinary household tool, commonly available and capable of being used for various innocuous purposes, and its mere recovery from the accused persons, without any other corroborative or incriminating circumstance, cannot, by itself, be treated as a circumstance pointing towards their involvement in the alleged offence.
It is further submitted that both the petitioners are not named in the FIR and no specific role have been attributed to them therein. Learned counsel also points out that petitioners are inside jail since 28.07.2025, i.e. for a period of approximately one year and one month.
Additionally, it is submitted that co-accused Neeraj, who is similarly situated, has already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court, vide order dated 04.08.2026 passed in CRM-M-26519-2026 (Annexure P-3). Thus, prayer has been made for grant of concession of regular bail to both the petitioners in the present case.
In response to the arguments addressed by learned counsel for the petitioners, learned State counsel, produces the custody certificates of both the petitioners dated 27.08.2026 in Court today, which are taken on record. Office to tag the same at appropriate place. A copy thereof has been handed over to the counsel for the petitioners.
As per the custody certificates, in the present case, both the petitioners have already undergone 01 year and 01 month period inside jail.
While opposing the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners, learned State counsel submits that, apart from the present case, both the petitioners are also involved in other criminal cases and, therefore, do not deserve the concession of bail in the present case.
However, learned State counsel is unable to controvert any of the factual assertions made by learned counsel for the petitioners before this Court today, including the total period of incarceration already undergone by the petitioners. Nevertheless, he prays for dismissal of the present petitions.
This Court has heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and has carefully perused the record available before it.
Admittedly, co-accused Neeraj, who is similarly situated, has already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court, vide order dated 04.08.2026 passed in CRM-M-26519-2026 (Annexure P-3).
Moreover, a significant aspect which deserves attention is that, as per the statement of material prosecution witness, namely Gopi Ram (Chowkidar), recorded on 25.03.2026, the witness failed to identify the accused during the Test Identification Parade as well as when they appeared before the trial Court, during the course of proceedings.
It is further evident from the statement of Gopi Ram that prosecution did not seek permission to declare the said witness hostile. Consequently, at this stage, identity of the petitioners as one of the alleged perpetrators, is yet to be established by the prosecution, through cogent and reliable evidence. In such circumstances, and considering that petitioners have already undergone incarceration for a period of about one year and one month, this Court is of the view that their continued detention pending trial would not serve any useful purpose for the prosecution, and petitioners cannot be kept behind bars for an indefinite period, merely because the trial is still pending.
Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of the present case, nature of allegations levelled against the petitioners, evidence noticed here above, and the period of incarceration already undergone by them, this Court deems it appropriate to extend the concession of regular bail to the petitioners in the present case.
Consequently, prayer made in the present petitions is allowed. Both the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail, subject to their furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case.
Needless to observe that the petitioners shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly.
Any of the discussion done and recorded here above, shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case. Therefore, trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.
It is further made clear that if, in future, petitioners are directly found indulged in similar kind of activities, this order shall be deemed to be cancelled.
Both the petitions stand disposed of.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected case.