Delhi HC rejects bail for man accused of stealing high-voltage metro cables
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has dismissed bail applications filed by a man accused of stealing high-voltage copper cables from the Delhi Metro network, observing that the offence had serious ramifications for public safety and the public exchequer.
A single-judge Bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee rejected the regular bail pleas of the applicant, Shivam, who was booked in two FIRs registered at the Metro Police Station (Netaji Subhash Palace) under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Metro Railways (Operation and Maintenance) Act, 2002.
The FIRs were registered following an incident on the intervening night of June 29 and 30, 2025, involving the theft of around 32.5 metres of 33KV copper cable between two metro masts. The theft was reported by the Traction Power Control (TPC) of Line-7 at 2.51 a.m.
The accused was subsequently arrested and has since been in judicial custody.
Seeking bail, counsel for the applicant submitted that the accused worked as a Swiggy delivery executive and was the sole breadwinner of his family. It was argued that the investigation was substantially complete and continued incarceration would infringe the applicant’s right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Opposing the applications, the prosecution submitted that 32.5 metres of copper wire were recovered from the accused after he was caught red-handed along with a co-accused, while another accused was still absconding. It further contended that the applicant was a habitual offender with criminal antecedents, being involved in at least six other FIRs registered at Shastri Park police station.
In its order, the Delhi High Court said that the allegations could not be treated lightly, observing that the applicant was “not a fly-by-night operator but a habitual offender who has since been active with the very same offences in the recent past”.
“The offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant herein has multifarious effects on the society at large, more so, since the applicant has put the life and limb of one and all in utter danger,” Justice Banerjee said, adding that he had caused “immense loss(es) to the public exchequer”.
Stressing the need to balance individual liberty with public interest, the Delhi High Court observed: “While granting bail, this Court must take into cognisance the public good versus the private good involved herein. The applicant herein has been guilty of playing with the lives of the general public.”
It also expressed apprehension that the accused, if released, could misuse his liberty.
“Under the existing scenario, it gives rise to grave suspicions of the applicant taking undue advantage of his being out on bail and/or trying to tamper with evidence and/or witnesses,” Justice Banerjee said.
Holding that all factual and legal considerations weighed against the applicant, the court concluded that the case was not fit for the grant of bail and dismissed both applications, while clarifying that its observations were only for deciding the bail pleas and would not affect the merits of the trial.
