Delhi District Court
State vs Amit @ Bhandari on 24 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF DR.YADVENDER SINGH,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05, WEST,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLWT01-009456-2023
Sessions Case No. 585/2023
FIR No. 21053/2020
PS Nangloi
Under Section 379/394/397/34 IPC
State
Vs.
Amit @ Bhandari
S/o Sh. Jai Bhagwan
R/o H.No. VPO Barahi Teh.Bahadur Garh,
Sadar Bahadurgarh, Jhajjar,
Haryana.
Case No. 585/2023 eFIR No. 21053/2020 Page 1 of 28
State v. Amit @ Bhandari
Date of Institution 24.02.2021
Date of Committal 24.11.2023
Charge framed Under Section 394/34 IPC and 397 IPC
Date of conclusion of final 24.03.2026
arguments and reserving Judgment
Date of Pronouncement of 24.03.2026
Judgment
Final Judgment Accused Amit @ Bhandari is
acquitted of the charge.
Index
1. Brief facts : Page No. 3-4
2. Registration of FIR,
statement of the complainant
and investigation conducted : Page No. 4-6
3. Charge : Page No. 6
4. Documents admitted by the
accused u/s 294 Cr.P.C. : Page No. 6-7
5. Prosecution Evidence : Page No. 7
Case No. 585/2023 eFIR No. 21053/2020 Page 2 of 28
State v. Amit @ Bhandari
6. Statements of accused
persons u/s 351 BNSS : Page No. 7
7. Defence Evidence : Page No. 8
8. Final arguments : Page No. 8
9. Appreciation of evidence
and Analysis of deposition
of witnesses : Page No. 9-23
10. Conclusion : Page No. 24
11. Specimen Chart of witnesses
examined : Page No. 25
12. Specimen Chart for exhibited
documents : Page No. 25-27
13. Specimen Chart for material
objects/Muddamals : Page No. 27
JUDGMENT
Brief Facts:
1. Accused Amit @ Bhandari is facing trial for the offence punishable u/s 394/34 and 397 IPC Indian Penal Code (hereinafter Case No. 585/2023 eFIR No. 21053/2020 Page 3 of 28 State v. Amit @ Bhandari referred to as 'IPC') on the allegations that on 29.08.2020 at about 02:30 PM, near Telco Road, near Balbir Saini Dharam Kanta, Swarn Park, Delhi, he alongwith his two other unknown associates, in furtherance of their common intention, committed robbery of motorcycle bearing registration no. UP-75T-7358 of the complainant Sh. Ravi Shanker Tiwari, by putting the pistol upon the complainant, voluntarily caused hurt, wrongfully restrained him and with instant fear of death.
Registration of FIR, statement of the complainant and investigation conducted:
2. As per the prosecution case, on 29.08.2020, an e.FIR was registered, wherein Ravi Shankar S/o Anant Ram reported regarding the theft of his vehicle bearing registration number UP-75-T8358, which had been stolen from Telco Road, near Balbir Saini Dharamkanta Swarn Park, Delhi between 14:30 hrs to 15:00 hrs. On receipt of abovesaid e.FIR, ASI Gulab Singh reached at the spot, wherein at the instance of complainant, he prepared the site plan and recorded the statement of complainant Sh. Ravi Shankar, wherein he stated that on 29.08.2020, at about 02:30 PM, he was going to his Case No. 585/2023 eFIR No. 21053/2020 Page 4 of 28 State v. Amit @ Bhandari room from his company namely Amazon, Swarn Park via Telco Road and when he reached near Saini Dharamkanta, Swarn Park, one boy aged about 24/25 years had stopped the vehicle of complainant by raising his hand and asked him about the C-2 address. In the meanwhile, two another boys, aged about 26/27 years came there and started giving beatings to the complainant.
They made him fallen from his motorcycle bearing registration no. UP-75T-7358 and ran away alongwith his motorcycle from there.
3. On the statement of the complainant, the present case for the offence punishable u/s 394/397/34 IPC was registered and investigation was conducted. During investigation, IO was informed through phone that accused Mohit @ Afridi, Amit @ Bhandari and Ashok @ Bholu were arrested in another case FIR No. 815/2020, U/s 393/397/411/34 IPC and section 25/27/54/59 Arms Act, wherein they had disclosed about their involvement in the present case. Thereafter, after getting permission of the Court, the TIP proceedings of all the abovesaid accused persons were conducted, wherein the complainant had identified only accused Amit @ Bhandari in the TIP proceedings.
Case No. 585/2023 eFIR No. 21053/2020 Page 5 of 284. Thereafter, accused Mohit @ Afridi and Ashok @ Bholu were released and accused Amit @ Bhandari was arrested in the present case and he had pointed out the place of incident after taking him on PC remand. However, the robbed motorcycle could not be recovered. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed for the offence u/s 394/397/34 IPC against the accused Amit @ Bhandari before the concerned Court and it was duly committed to this Court.
Charge:
5. On 21.03.2024, Charge for the offences punishable under Sections 394/34 IPC and 397 IPC was framed against accused Amit @ Bhandari by the Ld. Predecessor, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Documents admitted by the accused u/s 294 Cr.P.C.
6. On 03.02.2026, the accused had also admitted the documents u/s 294 Cr.P.C. i.e. (1) TIP proceedings of accused Amit @ Bhandari recorded by Sh. Sahil Gupta, the then Ld. MM, as Ex.PA1; and GD No. 67A dated 29.08.2020, PS Nangloi and e.FIR No. 021053/2020 Case No. 585/2023 eFIR No. 21053/2020 Page 6 of 28 State v. Amit @ Bhandari PS Nangloi as Ex. PA2 and Ex.PA3 respectively before the Court and accordingly, witnesses no. 8 & 9 were dropped from the list of prosecution.
The Trial Prosecution evidence:
7. To prove its case against the accused persons, the prosecution had examined 05 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-5.
Statement of accused Under Section 351 of BNSS :
8. Statement of accused Amit @ Bhandari under section 351 of BNSS was recorded on 12.03.2026, wherein all the incriminating material on record was put to him, however, he denied the same and deposed that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case just to solve these kind of cases. He has further deposed that earlier he was arrested in another case FIR No. 900/2020 PS Nangloi and at that time police officials of PS Nangloi snapped his photographs and same record has been took in the PS and the said photographs were also misused by the police officials in this case to falsely implicate him.
Case No. 585/2023 eFIR No. 21053/2020 Page 7 of 28State v. Amit @ Bhandari Defence Evidence :
9. The accused led the evidence by examining himself in his defence as DW-1, wherein he has deposed that he was arrested in case FIR No. 815/2020, PS Mangolpuri. Thereafter, he was lodged in Tihar Jail and formally arrested in case FIR No. 900/2020, PS Nangloi on 06.11.2020. The IO of the present case took his 10-15 photographs. Thereafter, his TIP was got conducted in Tihar Jail in the present case. He was identified during the TIP. He has apprehension that his photographs were shown to the witness before his TIP as the present case offence was not committed by him. He has been discharged in the case FIR no. 900/2020 PS Nangloi. The present case has been falsely planted upon him on the basis of TIP.
Final Arguments:
10. The Court has heard the final arguments as advanced by the Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State as well as Sh.Ram Kumar, Ld. Dy.Chief Legal Aid Defence Counsel for the accused. The Court has also gone through the entire material available on record.
Appreciation of Evidence and Analysis of deposition of witnesses :
Case No. 585/2023 eFIR No. 21053/2020 Page 8 of 28State v. Amit @ Bhandari
11. In order to prove the charges against the accused, the prosecution has examined total 05 witnesses. PW-5 is the complainant, PW-1 to PW-4 are police witnesses.
Deposition of material facts by PW-5/complainant :
12. During examination-in-chief, PW-5 deposed that on 29.08.2020 at about 02:30 PM, he came out from his office of the company Amazon situated at Swaran Jyanti Park, Delhi on his bike no. UP-75T-8358 and was going to his home situated at I.G.Colony via Telco road when he reached near Swaran Jyanti Park, Saini Dharam Kanta, one boy aged around 25 years gave directions to him by waiving his hand to him to stop. He further deposed that when he stopped his bike, the said boy asked him the address of his place i.e. C-2 and he replied that he did not know the said place and in the meantime, two more boys of the age around 26-27 years also came there. He further deposed that all these three boys started beating him using their fist and blows, they put him down and one of them put a pistol on his chest and thereafter, they fled away with his bike. He further deposed that thereafter, he reported the theft of his bike Case No. 585/2023 eFIR No. 21053/2020 Page 9 of 28 State v. Amit @ Bhandari by unknown persons and his statement was recorded. He further deposed that his bike had not been recovered yet.
13. During his examination-in-chief, he identified his signatures at point A on the copy of TIP proceedings, already exhibited as Ex.PA.1. he identified the accused, who was present through VC as the same person who committed the offence against him.
Material Lacunas in prosecution case :
14. (I) PW-4/IO exhibited statement of the complainant as Ex.PW-4/A during his examination-in-chief. However, the exhibition of this document was objected by the Ld. Defence counsel on the ground of mode of proof due to the reason that PW-4 was not the author of document. Surprisingly, due to the reasons best known to the prosecution, statement of the complainant was not put to him by the prosecution during his examination-in-chief as PW-5 i.e. after the examination of PW-4/IO.
Perusal of statement Ex.PW-4/A shows that it no where mentions the use of pistol by any of the Case No. 585/2023 eFIR No. 21053/2020 Page 10 of 28 State v. Amit @ Bhandari assailant. In the statement, any injury received by the complainant is also not mentioned.
(II) Site plan prepared by the IO was exhibited as Ex.PW-4/B during his examination-in-chief. He deposed that the same was prepared at the instance of complainant and he identified the signatures of complainant at point B on this document.
However, interestingly, site plan was also not put to the complainant by the prosecution due to the reasons best known to it despite the fact that the complainant was examined in the end of prosecution evidence as PW-5. He also did not depose anything regarding showing the place of incident to the police or regarding preparation of the site plan at his instance. (III) During cross-examination of complainant/PW-5, he answered that police officials visited his company for his job verification. However, no document or any other evidence to prove the job of complainant/PW-5 in Amazon company situated at Swaran Jayanti Park, Case No. 585/2023 eFIR No. 21053/2020 Page 11 of 28 State v. Amit @ Bhandari Delhi was placed on record by the IO in order to prove the possibility of presence of the complainant at the alleged date, time and place.
(IV) During his cross-examination, PW-5 also answered that the robbed motorcycle was registered in the name of his brother. During the examination-in- chief of PW-4, copy of RC of the alleged robbed motorcycle was marked as Mark X. However, neither the original owner of the said motorcycle was examined nor the original documents of the said motorcycle were produced before the Court and the document mark X is not properly legible and also remained unverified. Non examination of original owner of the motorcycle and not leading any cogent evidence regarding verification of the robbed motorcycle, the factum of robbery of this motorcycle comes under suspicion.
(V) During his cross-examination, PW-5 also answered that after the incident, he went to his office Case No. 585/2023 eFIR No. 21053/2020 Page 12 of 28 State v. Amit @ Bhandari and shared the incident with his senior namely Jai. Despite the fact that this person namely Jai could be a material witness in view of section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, this person was never examined by the IO.
(VI) PW-5 during his cross-examination answered that he made a call from his office to the police and thereafter, police officials visited his office and inquired from him and they recorded the details on a piece of paper (parchi). However, neither any such piece of paper bearing the details of the information provided by the complainant to the police was filed nor any of these police officials were examined by the IO. It is also not explained by the prosecution that what were the compelling reasons under which the legal proceedings were not initiated by these police officials after they inquired from the complainant. (VII) Perusal of the pointing out memo of the spot Ex.PW-3/A as allegedly prepared at the instance of Case No. 585/2023 eFIR No. 21053/2020 Page 13 of 28 State v. Amit @ Bhandari accused shows that it does not bear any name or signature of independent public witness. The reason for not joining the investigation to any public person at that time has also not been explained. It creates suspicion or veracity of the pointing out memo.
15. The accused has been charged for the offence u/s 394/34 IPC, which reads as under :
"If any person, in committing or in attempting to commit robbery, voluntarily causes hurt, such person, and any other person jointly concerned in committing or attempting to commit such robbery, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
16. Accordingly, in order to prove charge u/s 394 IPC, the hurt causing voluntarily to the victim by the accused also needs to be proved. However, in the present case, no medical documents or the Case No. 585/2023 eFIR No. 21053/2020 Page 14 of 28 State v. Amit @ Bhandari MLC of the victim has been placed on record showing any injury to the victim.
17. Accused is also charged for the offence u/s 397 IPC, which reads as under :
If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, so attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.
18. As per deposition of PW-5 during his examination-in-chief, out of three assailants, one of them put a pistol on his chest. However, neither the witness himself specified the person who actually used the pistol nor Prosecution made any efforts to seek explanation from any of the prosecution witnesses or to place on record any other cogent evidence in order to prove that which of the assailant actually used the deadly weapon, if any.
19. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Ram Case No. 585/2023 eFIR No. 21053/2020 Page 15 of 28 State v. Amit @ Bhandari Rattan v. State of Madhya Pradesh in Crl.Appeal no. 1333/2018 on 17.12.2021 has observed that :
12. Though, this remains the position, the question which needs consideration is with regard to the contention that the firearm had not been put to use and therefore the charge under Section 397 IPC is not sustainable and also the further contention that the charge under Section 397 even otherwise would not be sustainable against the appellant since there is no material or evidence to indicate that the appellant had used the firearm, even if it is held that the incident had occurred as alleged.
13. For better understanding, it would be appropriate to take note of the provisions contained in Sections 392 and 397 of IPC which read as hereunder:
"392. Punishment for robbery.- Whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment Case No. 585/2023 eFIR No. 21053/2020 Page 16 of 28 State v. Amit @ Bhandari for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the robbery be committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years.
397. Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt.- If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years."
14. On the said aspect, it would be appropriate to take note of the decision in the case of Shri Phool Kumar v. Delhi Administration (1975) 1 SCC 797 wherein it is observed as hereunder:--
Case No. 585/2023 eFIR No. 21053/2020 Page 17 of 28State v. Amit @ Bhandari "5. Section 392 of the Penal Code provides: Whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the robbery be committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years. The sentence of imprisonment to be awarded under Section 392 cannot be less than seven years if at the time of committing robbery the offender uses any deadly weapon or causes grievous hurt to any person or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person: vide Section 397. A difficulty arose in several High Courts as to the meaning of the word "uses" in Section 397. The term 'offender' in that section, as rightly held by several High Courts, is confined to the offender who Case No. 585/2023 eFIR No. 21053/2020 Page 18 of 28 State v. Amit @ Bhandari uses any deadly weapon. The use of a deadly weapon by one offender at the time of committing robbery cannot attract Section 397 for the imposition of the minimum punishment on another offender who had not used any deadly weapon. In that view of the matter use of the gun by one of the culprits whether he was accused Ram Kumar or somebody else, (surely one was there who had fired three shots) could not be and has not been the basis of sentencing the appellant with the aid of Section 397. So far as he is concerned, he is said to be armed with a knife which is also a deadly weapon. To be more precise from the evidence of PW 16 "Phool Kumar had a knife in his hand". He was therefore carrying a deadly weapon open to the view of the victims sufficient to frighten or terrorize them. Any other overt act, such as, brandishing of the knife or causing of Case No. 585/2023 eFIR No. 21053/2020 Page 19 of 28 State v. Amit @ Bhandari grievous hurt with it was not necessary to bring the offender within the ambit of Section 397 of the Penal Code."
15. Further, in Dilawar Singh v. State of Delhi (2007) 12 SCC 641, it is held as hereunder:--
"19. The essential ingredients of Section 397 IPC are as follows:
1. the accused committed robbery.
2. while committing robbery or dacoity
(i) the accused used deadly weapon (ii) to cause grievous hurt to any person (iii) attempted to cause death or grievous hurt to any person.
3. "Offender" refers to only culprit who actually used deadly weapon. When only one has used the deadly weapon, others cannot be awarded the minimum punishment. It only envisages the individual liability and not any Case No. 585/2023 eFIR No. 21053/2020 Page 20 of 28 State v. Amit @ Bhandari constructive liability. Section 397 IPC is attracted only against the particular accused who uses the deadly weapon or does any of the acts mentioned in the provision. But the other accused are not vicariously liable under that section for acts of the co-accused.
21. In the instant case admittedly no injury has been inflicted. The use of weapon by offender for creating terror in mind of victim is sufficient. It need not be further shown to have been actually used for cutting, stabbing or shooting, as the case may be."
16. In the decision of Ganesan (supra) referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant, the above noted decisions of this Court has been referred and this Court has held as hereunder:--
"12.7. Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid two decisions Case No. 585/2023 eFIR No. 21053/2020 Page 21 of 28 State v. Amit @ Bhandari the term 'offender' under Section 397 IPC is confined to the 'offender' who uses any deadly weapon and use of deadly weapon by one offender at the time of committing robbery cannot attract Section 397 IPC for the imposition of minimum punishment on another offender who has not used any deadly weapon. Even there is distinction and difference between Section 397 and Section 398 IPC. The word used in Section 397 IPC is 'uses' any deadly weapon and the word used in Section 398 IPC is 'offender is armed with any deadly weapon'. Therefore, for the purpose of attracting Section 397 IPC the 'offender' who 'uses' any deadly weapon Section 397 IPC shall be attracted.
In light of the above observations and the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid two decisions the case on behalf Case No. 585/2023 eFIR No. 21053/2020 Page 22 of 28 State v. Amit @ Bhandari of the accused in the present appeals is required to be considered. Even as per the case of the prosecution and even considering the evidence on record it can be seen that the present accused A1 and A3 are not alleged to have used any weapon. The allegation of use of any weapon was against Benny and Prabhakaran. Therefore, in absence of any allegations of use of any deadly weapon by the appellants herein-Accused Nos. 1 and 3 Section 397 IPC shall not be attracted and to that extent the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-accused are right in submitting that they ought not to have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 397 IPC."
20. In the instant case also as per PW-5/complainant, one of the assailant put a pistol on his chest. So when section 397 IPC envisages the individual liability and not any constructive liability Case No. 585/2023 eFIR No. 21053/2020 Page 23 of 28 State v. Amit @ Bhandari then the charge under this section is attracted only against the accused who uses the deadly weapon or does any of the acts, as mentioned in the provision. But the other accused persons are not vicariously liable under this section for acts of the co-accused. In the present case, no cogent evidence including any MLC or other medical document was led on behalf of the prosecution to prove that any injury was caused to the complainant by the accused. The alleged weapon of offence was also not recovered in the present case.
21. In view of the abovesaid discussion and the settled legal position, where no evidence was led to prove the charge u/s 397 IPC and when there is no evidence with the prosecution to connect the accused with the crime, then the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable u/s 397 IPC.
Conclusion :
26. From the testimonies of witnesses and circumstances and facts of this case, at this stage, this Court comes to the conclusion that the case of the prosecution does not inspire the confidence of Case No. 585/2023 eFIR No. 21053/2020 Page 24 of 28 State v. Amit @ Bhandari this Court as prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused persons beyond the reasonable doubt.
27. With this background, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the complicity of accused Amit @ Bhandari for the commission of crime beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts and has not been able to prove all the ingredients of the offences u/s 394/34 IPC and Section 397 IPC, for which accused has been charged and faced trial. Accordingly, accused Amit @ Bhandari is acquitted of the Charge u/s 394/34 IPC and 397 IPC.
28. Accused has been directed to furnish bail bonds in view of Section 481 of BNSS.
29. Ahlmad is directed to prepare release warrant with the directions to the concerned Jail Supdt. to release Amit @ Bhandari, if not required in any other case.
30. File be consigned to record room.
31. In view of the Judgment titled as Manojbhai Jethabhai Parmar (Rohit) v. State of Gujarat, 1 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the specimen chart of witnesses examined, specimen chart 1 Manojbhai Jethabhai Parmar (Rohit) v. State of Gujarat, in Criminal Appeal No. 2973 of 2023, decided on 15.12.2025.Case No. 585/2023 eFIR No. 21053/2020 Page 25 of 28
State v. Amit @ Bhandari of exhibited documents and Specimen Chart for material objects/Muddamals are as follows :
Specimen Chart of witnesses examined Prosecution Name of witnesses Description witnesses No. PW-1 HC Sunil Sharma Witness of investigation PW-2 SI Satish Witness of investigation PW-3 HC Mandeep Witness of investigation PW-4 Retired SI Gulab Singh Investigating Officer PW-5 Sh. Ravi Shankar Complainant and injured DW-1 Amit @ Bhandari Accused himself Specimen Chart for Exhibited Documents Exhibit No. Description of the Proved by/attested by Exhibit Ex. PW-1/A, Copies of arrest memos PW-1 HC Sunil Sharma Ex.PW-1/B of accused Amit @ and Bhandari, Mohit and Ex.PW-1/C Ashok @ Bhola, in case FIR No. 815/2020, PS Mangolpuri Ex.PW-1/D, Personal search memos PW-1 HC Sunil Sharma Ex.PW-1/E of accused Amit @ and Bhandari, Mohit and Ex.PW-1/F Ashok @ Bhola, in Case No. 585/2023 eFIR No. 21053/2020 Page 26 of 28 State v. Amit @ Bhandari case FIR No. 815/2020 PS Mangolpuri Ex.PW-1/G, Disclosure statements PW-1 HC Sunil Sharma Ex.PW-1/H of accused Amit @ and Ex. Bhandari, Mohit and PW-1/I Ashok @ Bhola, in case FIR No. 815/2020 PS Mangolpuri Ex.PW-3/A Pointing out memo of PW-3 HC Mandeep the place of incident Ex.PW-4/A Statement of PW-4 Retired SI Gulab Singh complainant Ex.PW-4/B Site Plan PW-4 Retired SI Gulab Singh Ex.PW-4/C, Copies of arrest memos PW-4 Retired SI Gulab Singh Ex.PW-4/D of accused Amit @ and Bhandari, Mohit and Ex.PW-4/E Ashok @ Bhola Ex.PW-4/F, Disclosure statements PW-4 Retired SI Gulab Singh Ex.PW-4/G of accused Amit @ and Bhandari, Mohit and Ex.PW-4/H Ashok @ Bhola Ex.PA1 TIP proceedings PW-4 Retired SI Gulab Singh and PW-5 Sh. Ravi Shankar Specimen Chart for material objects/Muddamals Material Object Description of the Exhibit Proved by/Attested by No. Nil Nil Nil Case No. 585/2023 eFIR No. 21053/2020 Page 27 of 28 State v. Amit @ Bhandari Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.03.24 16:44:50 +0530 Pronounced in the open Court on 24.03.2026 (Dr. Yadvender Singh) Additional Sessions Judge -05, (West) Tis Hazari Courts Delhi It is certified that this Judgment contains 27 pages and each page bears my signatures. Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.03.24 16:44:55 +0530 (Dr. Yadvender Singh) Additional Sessions Judge -05, (West) Tis Hazari Courts Delhi Case No. 585/2023 eFIR No. 21053/2020 Page 28 of 28 State v. Amit @ Bhandari