The Delhi High Court has firmly rejected the bail application of a Swiggy delivery boy accused of stealing metro copper cables, emphasizing that his actions were not mere "foolhardy antics" but posed severe risks to public safety and infrastructure. The court's ruling highlights the critical balance between individual liberty and societal welfare in bail decisions.
Court's Stern Stance on Public Safety
Justice Saurabh Banerjee of the Delhi High Court observed that the accused, identified as Shivam, is "not a fly-by-night operator but a habitual offender" who has been involved in similar offences in the recent past. The court noted that his alleged theft of metro cables put the "life and limb" of the general public in "utter danger," as the act involved tampering with live infrastructure that could lead to catastrophic failures.
Multifarious Effects on Society
The court found that the offence has multifarious effects on society at large, endangering public infrastructure and causing immense losses to the public exchequer. It attracted provisions under the Metro Railways (Operation and Maintenance) Act, 2002, along with the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), underscoring the gravity of crimes against critical public assets.
Past Criminal Antecedents Weigh In
Shivam already has multiple FIRs registered against him, which are at different stages of trial. The court expressed concerns that, based on his past activities, he is likely to involve himself in another such act if released on bail. This repeat pattern overrides his claim to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, as public safety considerations take precedence.
Defense and Prosecution Arguments
Advocate Mohd Suza Faisal, representing the petitioner, argued that Shivam works as a Swiggy delivery boy and is the primary breadwinner for his family. He submitted that the investigation is substantially complete and that continued incarceration would unjustly affect Shivam's right to personal liberty.
However, Assistant Public Prosecutor Satish Kumar opposed the bail, stating that 32.5 meters of copper wire was recovered from Shivam after he was caught red-handed along with co-accused Sameer and another unknown person in July 2025 outside Punjabi Bagh. Kumar highlighted that Shivam is a habitual offender involved in at least six other FIRs, and another co-accused, Nitish, remains at large.
Background of the Case
The incident occurred on the night of 29-30 June 2025, when Shivam and other co-accused allegedly stole approximately 32.5 meters of 33KV 1C, 400 sq. mm CU (copper) metro cable. The theft was reported by Traction Power Control (TPC) Line-7 at around 02:51 am, leading to an FIR and Shivam's subsequent judicial custody.
Public Good Versus Private Good Test
In its ruling, the court emphasized the importance of considering the cognisance of public good versus private good in bail decisions. It concluded that societal safety and infrastructure protection outweigh individual liberty considerations in this case, given the accused's history and the nature of the offence.
The existing circumstances, including suspicions that Shivam might tamper with evidence or witnesses if released, further justified the denial of bail. This decision serves as a stern reminder of the judiciary's role in safeguarding public interests against habitual offenders who threaten critical infrastructure.
