Delhi High Court - Orders
Sachin Sharma vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 4 May, 2023
Author: Swarana Kanta Sharma
Bench: Swarana Kanta Sharma
$~43
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 1468/2023
SACHIN SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Akash Sethi, Advocate
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for the State
with SI Aashish Malik, PS South
Rohini.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
ORDER
% 04.05.2023 CRL.M.A. 11895/2023 (exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
BAIL APPLN. 1468/20233. The instant application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 („Cr.P.C.‟) has been filed on behalf of applicant seeking grant of anticipatory bail in FIR bearing No. 460/2022, registered at Police Station South Rohini, Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 386/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 („IPC‟).
4. The brief facts of the present case are that a complaint was received on 25.10.2022 on the basis of which, FIR bearing No. 460/2022 was registered at Police Station South Rohini, Delhi. The complainant had Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:06.05.2023 17:51:20 alleged that on 19.10.2022 at about 8:30 AM, four unknown persons had entered his house and had impersonated themselves as DRI officers, the complainant and his family had been told by the accused persons that they had to conduct a raid as the complainant was involved in cash transactions and deals. One of the accused had threatened the complainant that he would put him behind the bars. Thereafter, they told the complainant that in case he wanted to settle the matter, he would have to pay Rs. 5 crore in cash. Thereafter, one of them had taken the complainant to a separate room and he had told the complainant that he can manage the entire case if a sum of Rs. 1 crore is paid to him. In case he would not pay them this amount they will cause harm to him and his family member. It is stated that a weapon was tugged in complainant‟s waist by the accused persons. The complainant under threat had agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs. He had arranged Rs. 15 lakhs which were available with him at his house and arranged Rs. 35 lakhs from one of his friends which had been collected by his wife. However, the complainant was kept in custody of the accused persons. During the investigation, the complainant had informed the police that on 19.10.2022, he had received a call from the same person who had extorted an amount of Rs. 50 lakhs from them that the accused persons be paid Rs. 5 lakhs more. The complainant had promised to pay by 24.10.2022. It is the case of the prosecution that during investigation, the CCTV footage had been analysed to trace the accused persons and to recover the extorted amount. During investigation, CDR of the alleged mobile numbers mentioned in the complaint was also obtained and the location was analysed. It is further argued that on 30.10.2022, a raiding team was constituted to arrest the accused persons and the details of the demanded money had been Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:06.05.2023 17:51:20 video graphed through staff deployed at the house of the complainant. In the evening, the complainant had received a call where the accused persons had asked him to reach along with the demanded money at Kali Mata Mandir, Ring road, Sector-3, Rohini, the complainant had agreed to pay the money and had reached Kali Mata Mandir where the accused along with three persons came in Fortuner Car and the car driver left the spot. Out of the three persons, the investigation revealed that one person i.e. Munaf @ Ahmed had come near the complainant to whom the complainant had handed over a plastic bag containing the demanded money i.e. Rs. 3 lakhs to him. In the meantime, the raiding party had apprehended the accused Munaf as well as the other two accused persons who were also with him and had tried to escape. Those three accused persons Munaf, Jaibir and Gaurav were arrested at the spot itself. It is further alleged that accused Jaibir had disclosed that co-accused Ram Kuwar had called him and had asked him to come to Delhi, when he had come to Delhi, he had met Anurag and Ram Kuwar who had introduced him to Vijay Kumar and Ashish Aggarwal at Ram Kuwar‟s flat in Pitampura. It is alleged that the conspiracy was hatched regarding the entire incident at the said flat of Ram Kuwar. Anurag had also given his Scorpio Car which was registered in his father‟s name to Ram Kuwar, Jaibir, Vijay and Ashish Aggarwal to show the house of the complainant. He also disclosed to the police that after the incident on 19.10.2022, accused Ashish had come to the house of Ram Kuwar and had taken his share of Rs. 22.5 lakhs from the extorted amount. It is also alleged that the CCTV footage installed near the flat of Ram Kuwar was also analysed which revealed that after the incident, the accused along with co- accused Ashish had visited the flat of Ram Kuwar in Pitampura. they came Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:06.05.2023 17:51:20 in car having registration no. DL7CR 9448 after parking their car near the house of co-accused Ram Kuwar, co-accused Vijay Gupta came out of the car from the driving seat and the accused applicant had also come out of the said car and had gone to the house of co-accused Ram Kuwar and had collected their share of extorted money. Thereafter, all the accused persons had left the place. It is stated that all other co-accused have been arrested who are either in judicial custody or have been granted regular bail.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the allegations levelled against the present applicant are false and no role has been specifically assigned by the complainant to the present accused applicant. It is also stated that the accused cannot be seen anywhere near the house of the complainant neither the complainant had seen him. It is, therefore, stated that the allegations levelled and the investigation which have been levelled or mentioned by the police cannot be relied upon and the present accused is entitled to anticipatory bail.
6. After hearing arguments addressed on behalf of both the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the present case is a case of conspiracy. What is important to note is that when the case was further investigated and the co- accused Ram Kuwar had made a disclosure statement regarding the present accused being part of the same conspiracy was hatched by all the accused persons including the applicant and pursuant to disclosure statement of co- accused Ram Kuwar recorded, the CCTV footage revealed that on the day i.e.19.10.2022, present accused had in fact visited the house of co-accused Ram Kuwar and of the complainant.
7. The learned counsel for the applicant has stated that no role has been assigned to the present accused/applicant in the entire case and he has been Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:06.05.2023 17:51:20 falsely implicated in this case. It is also stated that the FIR pertains to the year 2022 and the accused has not been named in the FIR. However, this Court notes that in the present case, the co-accused Ram Kuwar was declared a proclaimed offender and only after he was arrested after about eight months of the alleged incident, he had disclosed the name of the present accused/applicant. It is noted that pursuant to arrest of the co- accused Ram Kuwar, upon his disclosure statement, the accused has been identified by him in the CCTV footage of the house of the complainant wherein they are entering and also the house of co-accused Ram Kuwar for distributing the alleged amount amongst themselves. Moreover, he can also be seen in the CCTV footage visiting the house of co-accused Ram Kuwar. The CDR locations of all the accused persons who are the co-conspirators reveal their presence at the house of the co-accused as well as at the house of the complainant. The delay as alleged by the learned counsel for the present accused/applicant in identifying the present applicant has been on account of the co-accused being declared proclaimed offender after whose arrest and pursuant to his disclosure statement, the present applicant was identified in the CCTV footage and his identify was disclosed.
8. Considering that the present case is a case of conspiracy and the nature of allegations levelled as well as the gravity of offence, no ground for grant of anticipatory bail is made out since custodial interrogation of applicant will be required by the police for the purpose of recovery of the money taken as share by the present applicant and also to unearth the conspiracy and his particular role in the same.
9. Accordingly, the present bail application stands dismissed.
10. The observations made here-in-above will not tantamount to Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:06.05.2023 17:51:20 expression of any opinion on the merits of the case.
11. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J MAY 4, 2023/zp Click here to check corrigendum, if any Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:06.05.2023 17:51:20