Delhi High Court - Orders
Anubhav @ Annu vs The State on 20 May, 2022
Author: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
Bench: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 653/2022
ANUBHAV @ ANNU ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Shyamal Kumar and Mr.Sunil
Kumar Tomar, Advocates.
versus
THE STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Ms.Rajni Gupta, APP for the State
with SI Sumit, P.S.: Gandhi Nagar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
ORDER
% 20.05.2022
1. This is an application filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 439 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in FIR No.50/2021, under Sections 392/397/34 I.P.C. registered at Police Station: Gandhi Nagar.
2. In brief, as per the case of the prosecution, FIR was registered on the 01.03.2021 on the complaint by Daulat Singh wherein he alleged that on 13.02.2021 he reached at Raghubarpura, Gandhi Nagar for payment of parties and at about 03:40 PM in a gali near Jagdamba Dairy, two boys came from behind and tried to snatch his bag containing cash. When he opposed them, he was assaulted with fists and blows. Further, one of those boys took out a pistol and pointed the same upon him and robbed the bag containing cash of Rs.1.5 lakh. Both the accused thereafter fled away from the spot on a motorcycle.
During the course of investigation, he further clarified that the robbed Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Date:21.05.2022 15:18:18 amount was Rs.42.70 lakh but due to fear he stated the amount as Rs.1.5lakh.
3. Further, during investigation, CDRs, which were active on the spot were checked and on the basis of technical investigation, accused Jitendra @ Chhotu was arrested. Mobile phone, which was used by him at the time of commission of the offence, was recovered and his location was reconciled at the spot of incident. On interrogation, he revealed the name of his associates including petitioner. Sections 395 and 120B I.P.C. were accordingly added in place of Sections 392/34 I.P.C.
4. The present applicant/petitioner was arrested on 07.06.2021 on secret information. During interrogation, he disclosed that he received a sum of Rs.10.5 lakh from the total robbed amount, out of which Rs.1.4 lakh was given to the co-accused Varun and he had purchased a bullet motorcycle for Rs.1.7 lakh on 20.02.2021. Varun also bought an old scooty for Rs.30,000/-. Further, a sum of Rs.1 lakh is stated to have been recovered at the instance of petitioner from the house of his friend Amit on 10.06.2021.
5. The applicant/petitioner also refused to join TIP proceedings on 16.06.2021. The complainant further identified the petitioner after seeing the photograph in the dossier. The mobile phone used by the petitioner is stated to have been obtained on a fake ID and location of the said mobile No.8192820134 is stated to have been linked to the spot of incident. The motorcycle used for committing the offence was also recovered at the instance of the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a delay in registration of FIR, since incident took place on 13.02.2021 while the FIR was registered on 02.03.2021. It is further submitted that it is unlikely that Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Date:21.05.2022 15:18:18 anyone would chase the accused who was allegedly in possession of a firearm. Further, the discripencies are pointed in the site plan which was prepared at the instance of the complainant. It is further submitted that no independent witness has joined and the case has not been properly investigated.
7. The application has been vehemently opposed by learned APP and evidence collected during investigation as pointed out above is relied upon.
8. I have given considered thought to the contentions raised. It is very difficult to presume that recovery of such huge amount could have been planted at the instance of the complainant. Admittedly, the petitioner was not known to the complainant and there was no enmity with him to presume false implication. There is absolutely no explanation as to the source of funds for purchase of motorcycle by the petitioner and mode of payment. The petitioner is duly linked as per CDR record and even refused TIP proceedings. Merely because of delay in recording the FIR, it cannot be assumed that incident has been fabricated. On merits, considering the evidence on record, absolutely no grounds for bail are made out.
9. During the course of submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that initially the chargesheet was filed on 18.06.2021 but the cognizance has been only later on taken on 12.11.2021. Reliance is further placed upon judgment passed in 'Raradeo Mahta vs. State of Bihar', 1978 CrlLJ 1074 by Patna High Court on 18.04.1977 and 'Yogesh Mittal vs. Enforcement Directorate' by Delhi High Court in BAIL APPLN.1165/2017 on 16.01.2018 to contend that the custody of accused is illegal.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Date:21.05.2022 15:18:18On a query made to the learned counsel for the petitioner that in case the aforesaid aspect was contended before the learned trial court, it has been clarified that though the aspect of taking of cognizance was taken up in his application but the same was not considered in the impugned order dated 23.08.2021.
In view of the above, the petitioner shall be at liberty to take up ground regarding the alleged illegality of custody, before the learned trial court in the first instance in accordance with law since neither the order dated 18.06.2021 has been placed on record nor this Court has benefit of observations of the learned Trial Court.
Application is accordingly dismissed on merits.
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.
MAY 20, 2022/R Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Date:21.05.2022 15:18:18