Delhi High Court - Orders
Priya Thakur @ Krishma Rajput vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 17 December, 2020
Author: Vibhu Bakhru
Bench: Vibhu Bakhru
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 2279/2020
PRIYA THAKUR @ KRISHMA RAJPUT ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Balwant Singh Billowria and Mr
Anirudh Rai, Advocates.
versus
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through: Mr Tarang Srivastava, APP for State
with SI Mintu Gautam, PS Crime
Branch.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
ORDER
% 17.12.2020 [Hearing held through videoconferencing]
1. The applicant has filed the present application seeking bail in SC No. 53/2018 captioned "State v. Yashasvi Sharma @ Aditya Rajput etc." arising out of FIR No. 148/201, PS Crime Branch, East Delhi, under Sections 365/397/412/420/467/468/471/201/506/120-B IPC and 25/27/29 of the Arms Act, 1959.
2. The FIR in question was registered on 31.08.2017 at the instance of one Hitesh Shukla. In his statement, he stated that he is a dealer in Bitcoin and is engaged in selling and purchasing Bitcoins. He stated that in the last week of March 2017, the applicant had contacted his partner and then he had called her to know more about them. He alleged that the applicant claimed herself to be a Bitcoin seller and was offering to sell Bitcoin at the rate of ₹72,000/-. He alleged that they finalised a deal for fifty Bitcoins. Initially, Signature Not Verified digitally signed by:DUSHYANT RAWAL the applicant was ready to accept the consideration for 50 Bitcoins by a bank transfer. But subsequently he got a call from the applicant informing him that the seller is refusing to accept a bank transfer and would accept only cash.
3. He stated that since they had already accepted buying orders from their customers, they were in no position to resile from the same. The complainant claimed that he took assistance of an angadiya in Chandni Chowk to arrange for cash. He stated that he went to Chandni Chowk in a car belonging to his friend and in the meantime, the applicant also sent some person to the same angadiya in Chandni Chowk to confirm arrangement of cash and escort them to the location - Laxmi Nagar, V3S Mall. He alleged that they (the complainant and his friend) carried cash to the extent of ₹36 lacs and went to the spot. He alleges that the applicant came and sat in the car along with one other man and asked them to take the car near BSES Office on the pretext that the seller would be coming there. On reaching the said spot, the applicant allegedly asked him to stop the car and another man joined them. He alleges that at that stage, other person took out a pistol and placed it on the temple of his friend and forced them to follow their instructions. He threatened that if they did not do so, he would fire. He stated that on their instructions, they took a very long and indirect route and finally reached Vaishali, Ghaziabad. At that place another man joined them in the car. He also took out a firearm. He claimed that they took them to a flat on the third floor. However, the applicant continued to remain in the car. He alleges that the complainant and his friends were handed over to the men who was present there and then the other men who had joined them on their Signature Not Verified digitally signed by:DUSHYANT RAWAL way went back to get the cash that was lying in the car.
4. The complainant alleges that they collected the cash from the car and after collecting the cash and fifty Australian fifty from his wallet, released him and his friend. However, before releasing them, they threatened that they would harm them and their family members if they contacted the police and made any complainant against them.
5. According to the prosecution, the said incident took place on 07.04.2017. However, the FIR was registered a few months later on 30.08.2017. Thus, there is undeniably a delay in registration of the FIR.
6. The examination of the principal witness (the complainant) stands concluded. The applicant was arrested on 27.09.2017 and has been in custody till 31.07.2017. She was released on interim bail in terms of the order dated 25.06.2020 passed by this Court in Bail Application No. 995/2020.
7. The applicant further claims that she has to look after her minor son who is currently studying in sixth standard. Although it is disputed that she is required to look after her son as according to the respondent, it has been verified that he is being looked after by his maternal grandparents. Nonetheless, it is not disputed that the applicant has a minor child.
8. It is unlikely that the trial would be completed shortly. Considering the period spent by the applicant in custody and the fact that the principal witness (the complainant) has already been examined, this Court considers it apposite to allow the present application.
Signature Not Verified digitally signed by:DUSHYANT RAWAL9. In view of the above, the present application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹15,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate. This is also subject to following further conditions:
(a) The applicant shall provide a contact number and ensure that she is reachable at all times;
(b) She shall mark her presence before the SHO, PS Crime Branch on first Monday of each calendar month;
(c) She shall confine herself to National Capital Territory of Delhi and Dehradun. She shall not leave these cities except to commute to the other;
(d) She shall not contact or try and influence any of the witnesses or attempt to tamper with the evidence;
(e) She shall ensure that she is present on all hearings before the Trial Court.
10. The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J DECEMBER 17, 2020 RK Signature Not Verified digitally signed by:DUSHYANT RAWAL