$~8
*	IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  DELHI  AT  NEW  DELHI
%					                    Date of Decision: 10.03.2026

+ 	BAIL APPLN. 715/2026, CRL.M.A. 5551/2026 & CRL.M.A. 5550/2026 

	SHEHZAD @KARO					     .....Petitioner
Through:	Mr. Manohar Naagar and Mr. Akhil Gusain, Advocates 
				versus

	THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)			   .....Respondent
Through:	Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for the State with SI Abhay Bhati

	CORAM:          JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
		

J U D G M E N T    (ORAL)
1.	The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No.580/2023 of Police Station Madhu Vihar for offence under Section 392/394/397/34 IPC.
2.	I have heard learned counsel for accused/applicant and learned APP for the State assisted by IO/SI Abhay Bhati. 
3.	Broadly speaking, the prosecution case is that the complainant de facto met the present accused/applicant, who pretended as if he had been hit by a TSR in front of Max Hospital. When the complainant  de facto got down from his car to help the accused/applicant, two boys standing nearby came on a motorcycle and after snatching the gold chain worn by the complainant de facto, fled away. It is alleged that the accused/applicant also brandished a knife. 
4.	It is contended by learned counsel for accused/applicant that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is also contended that the accused/applicant was not named in the FIR. Further, it is submitted by learned counsel that complainant de facto has already been examined during trial, so there is no scope of the accused/applicant trying to influence anyone. 
5.	Learned APP opposes the bail application on the ground that the seriousness of offence cannot be ignored. 
6.	In response to a specific query, it is stated by the IO that according to the admitted position, the accused/applicant was not known to the complainant de facto and the former was not arrested from the spot, but no test identification proceedings were carried out. The accused/applicant is in custody since 09.11.2023 and no public witness remains to be examined, as per IO.  
7.	Considering the above circumstances, I do not find any reason to deprive further liberty to the accused/applicant. Therefore, the bail application is allowed and accused/applicant is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.  
8.	A copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the concerned Jail Superintendent for informing the accused/applicant.
9.	Of course, nothing observed in this order shall be read to the prejudice of either side at the final stage of the trial.
10.	Pending applications also stand disposed of. 




GIRISH KATHPALIA
     (JUDGE)
MARCH 10, 2026
‘rs’




BAIL APPLN. 715/2026	  		                   		      Page 3 of 3 pages