Amit Mahajan JUDGMENT
Amit Mahajan, J.
1. The present application is filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C."), seeking regular bail in FIR No. 471/2022, filed under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Sabzi Mandi.
2. It is alleged that on a specific input that the accused persons call people from all over Delhi and other States for the purpose of gambling, on 28.08.2022, a raid was conducted on the ground floor of House No. 32/6, Ground Floor, Sita Saran Colony, Sabzi Mandi in which 48 persons were apprehended and the FIR under Sections 3/4/5/9/55 of the Delhi Public Gambling Act, 1955, was registered at PS Sabzi Mandi.
3. It is claimed that during the search, various weapons were recovered.
4. One semi-automatic pistol along with five cartridges were recovered from the applicant and a separate FIR No. 471/2022 under Section 25 of the Arms Act was registered.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that in the same raid, co-accused, Jitender and Shiva were also found in possession of the weapons and have been granted bail by the learned Trial Court. He submits that the said accused were also found to be involved in other cases.
6. He submits that in the present case, the arms were planted by the police only for the reason that there are other cases also pending against the applicant. The applicant has been falsely implicated and has been made scapegoat only for the reasons that the cases had been registered against him on earlier occasions.
7. The State has filed status report and mentioned that the applicant has been previously involved in cases of similar nature. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that in all such cases the applicant has either been discharged/found not involved or is on bail.
8. On the last date of hearing, the Court had directed the State to file updated status report since it was specifically argued that the applicant is either on bail or has been discharged in the pending cases. An updated status report has been filed. It is not denied that the applicant in all the cases, which are referred in the status report has either been discharged/found not involved or is on bail.
9. Learned APP for the State opposes the bail application and submits that looking at the antecedents of the applicant, the bail ought not to be granted.
10. Learned Senior Counsel has drawn my attention to the order dated 30.05.2022, passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in another FIR under Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act at Police Station Seelampur, Delhi, in the case of the present applicant wherein the Hon'ble Court had taken note of the fact that the applicant has either been discharged, acquitted or granted bail in the earlier cases and had granted bail to the applicant.
Reasoning
11. The applicant is in custody since 28.08.2022. The co-accused who were found to be in possession of the weapons have already been granted bail by the learned Trial Court.
12. The alleged arms have already been recovered and no further recovery is allegedly left to be made at the instance of the applicant.
13. The allegations, whether the accused was in custody of the alleged weapons or whether they were planted by the Police would be tested during the trial.
14. As noted above, the app........