Delhi High Court - Orders
Vishal Rao Alias Kaku vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 13 January, 2022
Author: Mukta Gupta
Bench: Mukta Gupta
$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 2954/2021
VISHAL RAO alias KAKU .... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. Ankit Sharma, Advocate
through video conferencing.
versus
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ... Respondent
Represented by: Mr. G.M.Farooqui, APP for the State
with SI Jitender Kuamr Singh, PS
Mukherjee Nagar through video
conferencing.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
ORDER
% 13.01.2022 The hearing has been conducted through Video Conferencing.
1. By this petition the petitioner seeks regular bail in case FIR No.389/2019, under Sections 392/394/397/411/120B/34 IPC and Sections 25/27 Arms Act, registered at PS Mukherjee Nagar.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has no role to play in the incident and has been implicated based on the disclosure statement itself beyond which there is no legally admissible evidence against the petitioner. Further, the alleged recovery of USD 200 and the wrist watch of the complainant from the petitioner is also not connected with the offence for the reason the complainant in the FIR stated that only gold and cash was robbed and he did not say anything about the dollars as also that his wrist watch was robbed. He further states that after the petitioner was arrested in this case on his disclosure one more case was registered on him in which he is on bail. Learned counsel further states that FIR was registered after one day and hence the FIR cannot be stated to be cryptic having been lodged Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE BAIL APPLN. 2954/2021 Page 1 of 3 MUKTA GUPTA Signing Date:13.01.2022 21:54:29 after due deliberation.
3. The above noted FIR was registered after a PCR call was received on 7th September, 2019 regarding firing at house No.600, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar at PS Mukherjee Nagar. On receipt of the call the Investigating Officer reached the spot and was informed that the victim had been shifted to Max Fortis Hospital, Shalimar Bagh Delhi. On reaching the hospital, Mohinder Pal Narang was found injured with firearm injury over right shoulder. Statement of Mohinder Pal Narang was recorded who stated that when he reached home from his shop Nirankari Gems and Jewels situated at Kingsway Camp and opened the door of his car, two persons came near him and tried to rob his bag. On his resistance, one of the accused fired at him whereby he sustained bullet injuries and the accused persons fled away with the robbed bag containing 450 gms. of gold and ₹5,00,000/- in cash with the help of their third associate who was waiting for them on the motorcycle. On this statement the above noted FIR was registered.
4. Footages from the CCTV camera were retrieved and based thereon four accused, namely, Raj Kumar, Ajit Sehrawat, Vikash Narwal and Parveen Sheoran were arrested. In the interrogation of those accused the name of the present petitioner ropped up who stated that two more persons, namely, Ranjeet and Vishal Rao @ Kaku were also involved. At the instance of the petitioner USD 200 and the wrist watch of the complainant were recovered which wrist watch was duly identified by the complainant.
5. As per the investigation and even as per the CCTV, the role assigned to the petitioner is not of being present at the spot but that one Ranjeet was working with the daughter of the complainant at her petrol pump and it is stated that the petitioner passed on the information about the complainant to Ravi and Ranjeet. Thus, the two pieces of evidence that the prosecution Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE BAIL APPLN. 2954/2021 Page 2 of 3 MUKTA GUPTA Signing Date:13.01.2022 21:54:29 relies against the petitioner is the disclosure statements of the petitioner and co-accused and recovery of USD 200 and the wrist watch of the complainant which was duly identified in the TIP proceedings. In the TIP proceedings carried out the complainant duly identified the three main accused Ranjeet, Ajit and Vikash as also the wrist watch allegedly recovered from the petitioner.
6. Undoubtedly, in the FIR the complainant only mentioned that the bag containing 450 gms. gold and ₹5,00,000/- cash was robbed from him, however, in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. he also stated about USD 4100 and his wrist watch being robbed. The petitioner has been in custody since 18th September, 2019 and the charge has not been framed against the petitioner as yet. Since the petitioner was not at the spot and the only legally admissible evidence against the petitioner is the recovery of USD 200 and the wrist watch, and that the trial is likely to take long time, this Court deems it fit to grant regular bail to the petitioner. It is, therefore, directed that the petitioner be released on bail on his furnishing a Personal Bond in the sum of ₹50,000/- with two Surety Bonds of the like amount each, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/CMM/Duty Magistrate, further subject to the condition that the petitioner will not leave NCT of Delhi without the prior permission of the Court concerned, and in case of change of his mobile number and/ or the residential address, the same will be intimated to the Court concerned by way of an affidavit.
7. Petition is disposed of.
8. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
JANUARY 13, 2022/vk Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE BAIL APPLN. 2954/2021 Page 3 of 3 MUKTA GUPTA Signing Date:13.01.2022 21:54:29