$~11-12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 1112/2011 RAM AVTAR KANSAL Petitioner Tlirough: l^r.Vishwendra Vernna, Adv. versus STATE Respondent Through: l^s.Ritu Gauba, APP (12) BAIL APPLN. 1115/2011 AIMIT KANSAL Petitioner Through: Mr.Vishwendra Verma, Adv. versus STATE Respondent Through: l^s.Ritu Gauba, APP CORAM; HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI ORDER % 30.11.2011 1. These are two petitions for grant of anticipatory bail in respect of FIR no.241/2001, u/S 380/457 IPG registered by P.S. Shahbad Dairy and FIR No.241/2011, u/S 380/457 IPG registered by P.S. Shahbad Dairy, respectively. 2. Briefly stated that facts of the aforesaid cases are that on 12.7.2011, a PGR call was received, which was recorded vide DD 10-A, P.S. Shahbad Dairy, which gave information about Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified / s the theft in a godown at Village Prahlad Pur, Delhi. It transpires that after recording the statement of Sh.Karam Chand Gupta S/o Sh.Khazan Chand Gupta, 325 bags of grain (white peas) stolen from the godown of the complainant. Accordingly, FIR for an offence under Section 457/380 IPG was registered and investigations were handed over to SI Arun Kumar. 3. During the course of investigation, it transpires that a person by the name of Zahid had committed theft of grain from the godown of the complainant and thereafter, allegedly sold the same to a shopkeeper in Hapur (UP), who was doing the business of sale of grains. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no doubt, the petitioner is doing business of grain (wholesale) at Hapur (UP). He further contends that before any goods are brought into Mandi through vehicles, necessary entries are recorded at the time of entry at gate and thereafter at various other places before the goods were handed over to the petitioner for the purpose of sale. It has also been contended that despite the fact that the petition was filed almost 3 months back, no investigation has been done by the 10 either by interrogating the present petitioner or finding out -Wor- from the gate register as to whether any stolen articles, as alleged to have been sold to the present petitioner, were ever brought to the Mandi or not. 5. It is also contended by the learned counsel that regular bail has already been granted to the main accused persons and the petitioners will not flee away from the processes of law. It was stated that he will join the investigation as and when called upon. 6. The learned APP has opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the 325 kattas of white peas are yet to be recovered. 7. I have considered the respective submissions and gone through the record. 8. I feel that it is not a fit case where the discretion ought to be exercised in favour of the petitioner for the simple reason that the investigation is still at the threshold and the recovery of 325 kattas of white peas have yet to be made. 9. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the entries in the records of the go-downs or even 407 TATA Tempo having limited capacity etc. are the best defences which are available to the petitioner during trial. At the stage of grant of bail, the Court does not have to see all the plausible defences of the petitioner, qua the allegations which are sought to be leveled against him by the connplainant. 10. In case titled Emperor Vs. Khwaia Nazir Ahmed AIR 1945 Privy Council 18, the learned APP has clearly laid down that the prosecution agency be given a free hand to complete the investigation so as to proceed further with the matter. 11. I do not considered it to be a fit case for exercise of the discretion in favour of the petitioner. 12. Dismissed. NOVEMBER 30, 2011 RN V.K. SHALI, 3