IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J.
Naveen Kasana - Appellant
Versus
State NCT Of Delhi - Respondent
Bail Application No. 1828 of 2021, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 12740 of 2021
Decided On : 29-11-2021
Bail - Robbery - IPC 395/397/120B/412/34 and Arms Act 25/27 - The court rejected the bail application of the petitioner, considering the seriousness of the offences, the identification of the petitioner by the injured and the eye-witness, and the likelihood of the petitioner threatening the witnesses.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought regular bail in a case involving a day-light robbery where he was accused of firing on the complainant and robbing a substantial amount of money. The petitioner was identified by the injured and the eye-witness, and there were discrepancies in the amount allegedly robbed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the seriousness of the offences, the identification of the petitioner by the injured and the eye-witness, and the likelihood of the petitioner threatening the witnesses were grounds for rejecting the bail application.
Issues: Identification of the petitioner, discrepancies in the amount allegedly robbed, seriousness of the offences, and likelihood of the petitioner threatening the witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the identification of the petitioner by the injured and the eye-witness, the seriousness of the offences, and the likelihood of the petitioner threatening the witnesses as reasons for rejecting the bail application.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and directed the petitioner to surrender on or before 06.12.2021 before the concerned Jail.
JUDGMENT
Subramonium Prasad, J. - The petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No.272/2018 registered at Police Station Jagat Puri for offences under Sections 395/397/120B/412/34 IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.
2. Facts, in brief, leading to the instant petition are as under:
a) One Umesh Bansal S/o Sh. Rameshwar Prasad Bansal R/o H.No. B-802, Apex the floors Sector 18 Vasundhara, Ghaziabad, UP gave a complaint stating that he runs a cloth trading business having its office at H.No. A-30 1st Floor, Gali No.3, Old Arjun Nagar, Jagatpuri, Delhi. It is stated that on 17.09.2018 he along with his worker namely, Ram Sewak S/o Ram Prasad R/o H.No. A-81/B, Gali No 4, Rajveer Colony, Ghadoli Extention, Delhi, had gone to Shalimar Bagh to receive payment of Rs 2,70,000/-. It is stated that they kept the money in one bag and left on their scooty. It is stated that the complainant was riding the scooty and Ram Sewak was sitting at the back. It is stated that at around 3:50 PM they reached the shop. It is stated that when they reached in front of their shop, two persons, aged about 25-30 years, came there on a black coloured Splendour motor cycle. It is stated that the person sitting at the back of the motor cycle came towards the complainant and tried to snatch the bag containing money. It is stated that the person riding the motor cycle took out a pistol and fired at the complainant and Raw Sewak and snatched the bag. It is stated that after snatching the bag, the person riding pillion, also fired a shot from his pistol which hit the left thigh of Ram Sewak. It is stated that the accused took one more bag from the scooty and fled from the place and the complainant could not note down the number of the motor cycle. It is stated that Ram Sevak was taken to Dr. Hedgewar Hospital. Police was informed about the incident. Police came to the hospital and received the MLC of Ram Sewak being, MLC No 3478/18. On this complaint FIR No.272/2018 was registered at Police Station Jagat Puri for offences under Sections 394/397/34 IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. Police came to the spot and four empty cartridges and four bullet leads were recovered and seized.
b) Statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C wherein he stated that due to anxiety and the incident he had forgotten to tell about Rs.5,00,000/- which he had kept in the Scooty. He, therefore, stated that a total of Rs.7,70,000/- had been stolen by the accused persons.
c) During investigation CCTV footages were obtained and analysed. On the basis of the CCTV footage, CDR of one Sahib@Prabhjot S/o Tajender Singh was analyzed and it was found that he was in constant touch with one Sakshi W/o Ravinder. CDR of Sakshi's phone number was analyzed and it was found that she was in constant touch with one Indal S/o Brijlal. Location of both the numbers was found to be near the place of incident. Indal and Ravinder were arrested and their statements were recorded. In their disclosure statement they stated that Anil@Annu, Sahib@Prabhjot, Ravinder@Babloo, Shakil@Arvind and the petitioner herein were involved in the commission of offence.
d) The petitioner herein was running in Judicial Custody at Dasna Jail, Ghaziabad. He was formally arrested on 06.10.2018. Section 395 IPC was added in the FIR. TIP proceedings were conducted and the petitioner was identified by the injured and the eye-witness. The petitioner was not identified by the complainant, however, it is pertinent to note that the complainant lodged a complaint, being FIR No.298/2018 for offences under Section 195A IPC at Police Station Jagatpuri, against the petitioner herein stating that the petitioner and his associates have threatened him not to identify the petitioner during TIP proceedings.
e) Out of the total amount of Rs.7,70,000/-, Rs.3,20,000/- was recovered from the flat of the petitioner. A pistol with five live cartridges and a Hero Honda Splendour Motorcycle, which was used in commission of offence was also
The seriousness of the offences, the identification of the accused, and the likelihood of the accused threatening the witnesses are crucial factors in considering a bail application.
The seriousness of the offences, the accused's active involvement, and the likelihood of the accused repeating the offence if released are crucial factors in determining bail applications.
The court considered the duration of custody, filing of charge-sheet, and the pandemic situation as factors in granting interim bail with stringent conditions.
The court may grant bail based on the duration of custody and the submission of a charge sheet, despite the prosecution's claims of habitual offending.
Bail denied in heinous robbery conspiracy case due to prima facie involvement via stolen property possession, firearms recovery, and mobile location data, given offence severity punishable by life im....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to grant bail based on prima facie evidence and the petitioner's habitual criminal behavior.
The decision highlighted the importance of considering the prolonged custody of the accused, the lack of progress in the trial, and the absence of incriminating evidence in granting regular bail.
Cancellation of Bail - an order granting bail ought not to be interfered by the High Court unless there are compelling reasons warranting cancellation of bail.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.