Deepak Kumar vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 28 November, 2025

[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Deepak Kumar vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 28 November, 2025

1. This application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732) seeks regular bail in the proceedings arising from FIR No. 1188/2023 dated 31st October, 2023, registered under Sections 392 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603 at P.S. Karol Bagh, Delhi.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

2.1. The FIR was registered on the statement of the complainant, Mukesh Kumar, who works as an accountant in the office of one Saurav Aggarwal at Karol Bagh. He reported that on 30th October, 2023, at about 3:00 PM, while 1 "BNSS"

"CrPC" 3

"IPC"

BAIL APPLN. 2140/2025 Page 1 of 7

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/12/2025 at 22:22:19 he was alone in the office where cash amounting to INR 39 lakh was kept, three unknown persons forcibly entered, tied his mouth, hands and legs with cello tape and rope, and robbed the said cash along with his Oppo A-57 mobile phone. On this complaint, an FIR was initially registered under Sections 392/34 IPC. During investigation, five accused, Raju Saini, Kamal Kumar, Dipender Kumar Saini, Deepak Kumar (the present Applicant), and Deepak @ Tatu were arrested. At their instance, an aggregate sum of INR 37,62,000/-, the robbed mobile phone, a knife, a toy gun and other articles were allegedly recovered. Upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet under Sections 395, 412 and 120B IPC was filed.

2.2. During interrogation, Deepak @ Tatu disclosed that he had received information regarding the presence of substantial cash in the said office from one Ashish @ Chhotu, who introduced him to Lalit @ Sunny, and that the three had conspired to commit the robbery. Pursuant thereto, Ashish and Lalit were also arrested. During judicial TIP, the Complainant identified the three accused who entered the office, namely Deepak @ Tatu, Kamal Kumar and Dipender Kumar Saini. The Applicant and co-accused Raju Saini conducted surveillance outside the office on a motorcycle, which vehicle was later identified and seized during investigation. A sum of INR 4,00,000/- was also recovered at the instance of the Applicant and his brother Dipender, and charges under Sections 395/412/120B IPC have been framed against the Applicant.

3. Mr. Amjad Khan, counsel for the Applicant, submits that the Applicant has been falsely implicated. The Applicant was arrested on 31st October, 2023 and has remained in custody for over two years. The investigation stands concluded, charges have been framed, and any further BAIL APPLN. 2140/2025 Page 2 of 7 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/12/2025 at 22:22:19 custodial detention is unjustified, particularly in light of the slow pace of the trial. It is pointed out that only two out of thirty cited witnesses have been examined so far, and the trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future. The Complainant has already been examined, thereby substantially reducing any apprehension of witness intimidation or interference. It is further urged that the Applicant was not identified in judicial TIP, has clean antecedents. In these circumstances, continued incarceration would amount to pre-trial punishment, contrary to the settled principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Aashneet Singh, APP for the State, opposes the application. He submits that the Applicant, acting in concert with co- accused, was a participant in a premeditated conspiracy culminating in the commission of a serious offence of dacoity, involving the looting of a substantial cash amount. A sum of INR 4,00,000/- was jointly recovered at the instance of the Applicant and his brother, Dipender, who was correctly identified during judicial TIP. It is further submitted that the motorcycle bearing registration No. DL 3SER 9899, recovered during investigation, is clearly visible in CCTV footage nearby location, showing the accused arriving before the incident and leaving thereafter. When this footage was shown to the motorcycle's owner, Rajesh, he identified the riders as the co- accused Raju Saini and the present Applicant. Having regard to the gravity of the allegations, the magnitude of the amount looted, and the role attributed to the Applicant, it is contended that releasing him on bail would pose a real and imminent risk of his absconding or influencing and intimidating witnesses, thereby jeopardising the fairness of the trial. It is also stated that all procedural safeguards at the time of arrest, including BAIL APPLN. 2140/2025 Page 3 of 7 This is a digitally signed order.

5. The Court has considered the rival submissions and the material on record. The allegations in the present case relate to the commission of dacoity involving a substantial cash amount, which is, without a doubt, a serious offence. That said, the gravity of the charge cannot, by itself, operate as an absolute bar to the grant of bail. At this stage, the Court is required to undertake a holistic appraisal of the case in relation to the individual accused, keeping in view factors such as: whether there exists prima facie material connecting the Applicant with the alleged offence, the nature and gravity of the accusation, the severity of the possible sentence, the risk of the Applicant absconding or tampering with evidence, and the likelihood of repetition of the offence, amongst other attendant circumstances.4

6. While a detailed evaluation of the material is impermissible at the stage of bail, a limited prima facie assessment indicates that, as against the Applicant, the case primarily presently rests on circumstantial and inferential links, in contrast to the co-accused who are alleged to have entered the office and have been specifically identified by the Complainant. The prosecution does not allege that the Applicant entered the Complainant's office or physically participated in the incident. His imputed role is one of facilitation: conducting surveillance outside the Complainant's office on a motorcycle along with co-accused Raju Saini, and his alleged connection with the recovery of INR 4,00,000/-. The State relies on CCTV footage purportedly showing the Applicant arriving and leaving on a motorcycle near the spot and on the identification made by its owner, BAIL APPLN. 2140/2025 Page 4 of 7 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/12/2025 at 22:22:19 Rajesh. At this stage, however, the evidentiary value of the footage, which does not independently establish the identity of the riders, and of the owner's statement, who is not an eyewitness to the incident, must be tested at trial. Similarly, the probative value of the alleged joint recovery of INR 4,00,000/- is also a matter for detailed scrutiny during the trial.

7. The allegation of conspiracy under Section 120B IPC requires prima facie material indicating a prior agreement or "meeting of minds". Whether the prosecution can ultimately establish that the Applicant's alleged actions were part of such an agreement is a matter for the Trial Court to determine on the basis of the evidence adduced.

8. The Nominal Roll reflects that the Applicant has remained in custody since 31st October, 2023 and has undergone more than two years of incarceration. The Applicant is a young individual with no prior criminal antecedents. The investigation is complete, the charges stand framed and the Complainant has already been examined, substantially diminishing any apprehension of witness intimidation. The Trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future. The settled position of law, as reiterated in a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court, is that the object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive. Its primary purpose is to ensure the presence of the accused during trial and not to inflict pre-trial punishment.5

9. Having regard to the nature of allegations, the role attributed to the Applicant, the period of custody already undergone, and the absence of any demonstrated necessity for continued detention, this Court is of the view that further incarceration of the Applicant is not warranted.

Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr. (2010) 14 SCC 496.

See: Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40; Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of BAIL APPLN. 2140/2025 Page 5 of 7 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/12/2025 at 22:22:19

10. The Applicant is, therefore, directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond for a sum of INR 25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty MM, on the following conditions:

a. The Applicant shall cooperate in any further investigation as and when directed by the concerned IO;

b. The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with the evidence of the case, in any manner whatsoever; c. The Applicant shall under no circumstance leave the country without the permission of the Trial Court;

d. The Applicant shall appear before the Trial Court as and when directed;

e. The Applicant shall provide the address where he would be residing after his release and shall not change the address without informing the concerned IO/ SHO;

f. The Applicant shall, upon his release, give his mobile number to the concerned IO/SHO and shall keep his mobile phone switched on at all times; g. The Applicant shall report to the concerned PS on first Friday of every month. It is clarified that he shall not be kept waiting for more than an hour.

11. In the event of there being any FIR / DD entry / complaint lodged against the Applicant, it would be open to the State to seek redressal by filing an application seeking cancellation of bail.

Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51.

BAIL APPLN. 2140/2025 Page 6 of 7

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/12/2025 at 22:22:19

12. It is clarified that any observations made in the present order are for the purpose of deciding the present bail application and should not influence the outcome of the trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

13. Accordingly, the application is allowed and disposed of along with any pending application(s).

SANJEEV NARULA, J NOVEMBER 28, 2025/ab BAIL APPLN. 2140/2025 Page 7 of 7 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/12/2025 at 22:22:19

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders