Delhi HC refuses bail to gig worker accused of stealing metro cable

The Delhi High Court has refused to grant bail to a gig worker accused of stealing a 32 metre copper cable from a metro line, observing that he played with the lives of the public and caused immense loss to the exchequer.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee said the accused did not merely indulge in “some foolhardy antics” but his actions put the life and limb of the public in utter danger.

Dismissing the bail plea, the judge noted that the accused was a habitual offender.

“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,” the court said in the order passed on January 31.

“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.

“As the applicant is not guilty of some foolhardy antics, he has no doubt caused immense loss(es) to the public exchequer. All of the above cannot be ignored. All the aforesaid factors, both factually and legally, are themselves sufficient for denying bail to the applicant,” it concluded.

The accused, a delivery boy for a food delivery app, was caught with the copper cable in Punjabi Bagh following a report of theft by Traction Power Control at 2:51 am on the intervening night of June 29 and 30, 2025, the Delhi Police said.

He has been in judicial custody since his arrest in July 2025.

Also Read: Early gains fade as Delhi records rise in road accident deaths in 2025

FIRs were registered by the Delhi Police for the offence of theft under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, as well as obstructing running of train, maliciously wrecking a train or causing sabotage and damage to or destruction of certain metro railway properties under the Metro Railways (Operation and Maintenance) Act, 2002.

Delhi Police opposed the bail plea and informed the court that the accused was a habitual offender with significant criminal antecedents.