While considering an application seeking regular bail in an FIR registered for offenses punishable under section 408/411 Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Delhi High Court has granted bail to an accused in a criminal breach of trust case, citing lack of recovery of stolen property and undue delay in the trial.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Vikas Mahajan observed that “Undoubtedly, the only offence invoked against the petitioner is under section 408 IPC. Clearly, offence under Section 411 IPC cannot be invoked against the petitioner as there is no allegation against him that he dishonestly received the stolen property”.

The bench further added that “No recovery was affected from the petitioner, only 14 grams gold was recovered from Dhanaji Maeitkari who stated that the said gold was sold to him by the petitioner, but the same is yet to be established. It is also not in dispute that the Pune residence of the petitioner was searched & the petitioner was in 9 days police custody but still no recovery was affected at the instance of the petitioner”.

Senior Advocate Sunil Dalal appeared for the Petitioner, whereas Advocate Richa Dhawan appeared for the Respondent.

As per the brief facts, the present FIR was registered based on a complaint by the complainant, accusing the petitioner and one more person, of cheating, criminal breach of trust, dishonestly receiving stolen property, and criminal conspiracy. The prosecution's case was that the petitioner, seeking a job, was working for the complainant. When a customer ordered a 1kg brick of 24-carat gold, the complainant asked his supplier, Dhanaji Vitthal Jadav, to provide the gold brick to the petitioner. The petitioner received the gold brick but did not return it and left his job. After inquiries, it was discovered that the petitioner sold the gold brick and fled to his hometown.

After considering the submission, the Bench noted that probative value of the CCTV footage of a hotel in which the petitioner allegedly appears to be taking out cash from his bag has to be seen by the Trial Court at the stage of trial.

“It would not be appropriate for this Court to comment on the same at this juncture as it may prejudice the case of the prosecution as well as that of the accused person”, added the Bench.

The Bench held that nothing had been pointed out to show that the petitioner had a criminal record, and therefore, besides the petitioner's involvement, other parameters for granting bail also needed to be considered.

The Bench also remarked that the object of judicial custody is not punitive but to secure the presence of the accused during the trial.

Therefore, taking note of the fact that the petitioner had been in judicial custody since Feb 17, 2023, the trial had yet to commence, and with 14 witnesses cited by the prosecution, the High Court pointed that it was unlikely that the trial would be concluded anytime soon, and hence, held that the petitioner had made out a case for the grant of regular bail.

Cause Title: Navnath Sampat Pukale v. State [Neutral Citation: 2023: DHC: 7552]

Click here to read/ download the Judgment


Delhi High CourtJustice Vikas MahajanSection 411 IPC

Pankaj Bajpai