BAIL APPLN./3887/2024 of SUNDER THROUGH ITS PAROKAR MRS NISHA Vs STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+BAIL APPLN. 3887/2024 & CRL.M.A. 32328/2024SUNDER THROUGH ITS PAROKAR MRS NISHASUNDER THROUGH ITS PAROKAR MRS NISHA

.....PetitionerThrough:Mr. Mukesh Gupta & Mr. SachinSingh Shah, Advocates.Singh Shah, Advocates.

versus

STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

.....Respondent

Through:Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for the Statewith SI Arvind, P.S.: Crime Branch.with SI Arvind, P.S.: Crime Branch.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANIO R R13.12.2024

By way of the present petition filed under section 483 of theBharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, the petitioner seeks regularbail in case FIR No. 0125/2021 dated 10.07.2021 registered undersections 392/397/342/411/120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(‘IPC’) and sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 at P.S. CrimeBranch, Delhi.

2.Notice on this petition was issued on 24.09.2024.

3.Status Report dated 19.11.2024 has been handed-up in court. Thesame is taken on record.same is taken on record.

4.Ms. Shubhi Gupta, learned APP appearing for the State informs thecourt that the complainants have been intimated about the presentproceedings, including by means of speed-post; and copies of thepostal receipts in evidence thereof have been appended to the statusreport.court that the complainants have been intimated about the presentproceedings, including by means of speed-post; and copies of thepostal receipts in evidence thereof have been appended to the statusreport.

5.However, no one is present on behalf of the complainants when thematter is called-out.matter is called-out.

6.The complainants are ordinarily stated to be residents of West Bengaland the Investigating Officer (‘I.O.’) informs the court that uponspeaking to the complainants, he has been told that they would not beable to join the present proceedings either in-person or via video-conferencing from their native place.

The matter dates back to the time of the COVID-19 pandemic and it isalleged that the petitioner duped and defrauded the complainants, whowere immigrant workers returning to India from Saudi Arabia.

Briefly, the factual matrix obtaining in the matter is that on09.07.2021, the complainant alongwith 04 of his colleagues returnedto India and landed at the IGI Airport, New Delhi and then headed forthe New Delhi Railway Station to catch train to Kolkata, WestBengal. The complainant alleges that on the intervening night of09/10.07.2021, he and his colleagues were approached by anindividual at the New Delhi Railway Station who informed them thatto travel by train they would require separate COVID-19 test reportand that the test report provided to them at the IGI Airport, New Delhiwould not be valid for travelling by train.

The complainant further alleges that on this excuse the complainantand his mates were asked to accompany the person to an office inPaharganj, New Delhi so that the required COVID-19 test reportscould be arranged for them; whereafter, they were informed that theirrespective reports would be ready by the next morning; andaccommodation for the night was also arranged for them at hotelnearby.

10.It is the complainant’s case, that subsequently on 10.07.2021 at about12:00 p.m., when the complainant and his mates reached thePaharganj office of the accused persons, 06 persons were found sittingin the office who asked the complainant and his mates to pay certainsum of money towards their respective COVID-19 test reports. It isalleged that when the complainant and his mates refused to pay thesaid amount, two of the accused persons threatened them by pullingout country-made pistol and knife; and the complainant and hismates were held hostage, threatened with dire consequences androbbed of their cash and other valuables, including wrist watches,mobile phones etc.12:00 p.m., when the complainant and his mates reached thePaharganj office of the accused persons, 06 persons were found sittingin the office who asked the complainant and his mates to pay certainsum of money towards their respective COVID-19 test reports. It isalleged that when the complainant and his mates refused to pay thesaid amount, two of the accused persons threatened them by pullingout country-made pistol and knife; and the complainant and hismates were held hostage, threatened with dire consequences androbbed of their cash and other valuables, including wrist watches,mobile phones etc.

11.Mr. Syed Hasan Isfahani, learned counsel appearing for the petitionersubmits, that insofar as the petitioner is concerned, the only allegationagainst him, as narrated in the chargesheet, is that when the victimswere being robbed of their belongings, the petitioner was present inthe office of co-accused Vijay Bhan Pandey and that therefore heparticipated in the commission of robbery/dacoity by the co-accusedpersons.submits, that insofar as the petitioner is concerned, the only allegationagainst him, as narrated in the chargesheet, is that when the victimswere being robbed of their belongings, the petitioner was present inthe office of co-accused Vijay Bhan Pandey and that therefore heparticipated in the commission of robbery/dacoity by the co-accusedpersons.

12.Merits of the case apart, Mr. Isfahani argues that of the 08 accusedpersons, 05 co-accused have already been admitted to regular bail;that charges have been framed in the matter vide orders dated05.06.2024 and 24.07.2024; and that despite lapse of more than 03years from the date of the offence, not even one of the 29 prosecutionwitnesses cited in the chargesheet have so far been examined.persons, 05 co-accused have already been admitted to regular bail;that charges have been framed in the matter vide orders dated05.06.2024 and 24.07.2024; and that despite lapse of more than 03years from the date of the offence, not even one of the 29 prosecutionwitnesses cited in the chargesheet have so far been examined.

13.It is accordingly argued, that the trial will take very long time tocomplete, and in the meantime, the petitioner has already sufferedjudicial custody of more than 03 years as an undertrial.complete, and in the meantime, the petitioner has already sufferedjudicial custody of more than 03 years as an undertrial.

14.On the other hand, opposing the grant of regular bail, learned APPargues that the petitioner is accused of an offence committed at timewhen the public at-large were vulnerable; and the allegation againstthe petitioner shows that he took advantage of the vulnerability ofmigrant workers returning to India at time of global crisis, andinstead of helping the complainant, he was involved in robbing thecomplainant.argues that the petitioner is accused of an offence committed at timewhen the public at-large were vulnerable; and the allegation againstthe petitioner shows that he took advantage of the vulnerability ofmigrant workers returning to India at time of global crisis, andinstead of helping the complainant, he was involved in robbing thecomplainant.

15.Learned APP also points-out, that the petitioner is habitual offenderand is involved in two other cases bearing case FIR No. 289/2005registered under sections 379/411 IPC at P.S.: Paharganj, Delhi andcase FIR No. 245/2005 registered under section 411 IPC at P.S.:Mansarovar Park, Delhi; and that his overall jail conduct has been‘unsatisfactory’.and is involved in two other cases bearing case FIR No. 289/2005registered under sections 379/411 IPC at P.S.: Paharganj, Delhi andcase FIR No. 245/2005 registered under section 411 IPC at P.S.:Mansarovar Park, Delhi; and that his overall jail conduct has been‘unsatisfactory’.

16.Upon conspectus of the facts and circumstances of the case, thefollowing two factors weigh with this court:following two factors weigh with this court:

16.1. There is no allegation of the petitioner having wielded anyweapon and the only recovery alleged to have been made fromhim is sum of Saudi Riyal 2,000, which is alleged to havebeen robbed from one of the victims;weapon and the only recovery alleged to have been made fromhim is sum of Saudi Riyal 2,000, which is alleged to havebeen robbed from one of the victims;

16.2. Though the overall jail conduct of the petitioner is recorded asbeing ‘unsatisfactory’, he would have served the requisiteprison punishments awarded to him for the jail infractions;being ‘unsatisfactory’, he would have served the requisiteprison punishments awarded to him for the jail infractions;

16.3. It is also noticed that the petitioner has been granted interimbail once in August/September 2024 and there is no allegationthat he misused the liberty; andbail once in August/September 2024 and there is no allegationthat he misused the liberty; and

16.4. The petitioner has already spent about 3½ years in judicialcustody as an undertrial, whereas evidence in the matter is yetto commence and not even one of the 29 prosecution witnessescited has been examined in the trial court so far.custody as an undertrial, whereas evidence in the matter is yetto commence and not even one of the 29 prosecution witnessescited has been examined in the trial court so far.

17.In the circumstances, this court is persuaded to grant to the petitioner– Sunder s/o Malak Raj – regular bail pending trial, subject to thefollowing conditions :– Sunder s/o Malak Raj – regular bail pending trial, subject to thefollowing conditions :

17.1. The petitioner shall furnish personal bond in the sum ofRs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty-five Thousand Only) with 02 suretiesin the like amount from family members, to the satisfaction ofthe learned trial court;Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty-five Thousand Only) with 02 suretiesin the like amount from family members, to the satisfaction ofthe learned trial court;

17.2. The petitioner shall furnish to the I.O. cellphone number onwhich the petitioner may be contacted at any time and shallensure that the number is kept active and switched-on at alltimes;which the petitioner may be contacted at any time and shallensure that the number is kept active and switched-on at alltimes;

17.3. If the petitioner has passport, he shall surrender the same tothe learned trial court and shall not travel out of the countrywithout prior permission of the learned trial court;the learned trial court and shall not travel out of the countrywithout prior permission of the learned trial court;

17.4. The petitioner shall not contact, nor visit, nor offer anyinducement, threat or promise to any of the prosecutionwitnesses or other persons acquainted with the facts of case.The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence nor otherwiseinducement, threat or promise to any of the prosecutionwitnesses or other persons acquainted with the facts of case.The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence nor otherwise

indulge in any act or omission that is unlawful or that wouldprejudice the proceedings in the pending trial; andprejudice the proceedings in the pending trial; and

17.5. In case of any change in his residential address/contact details,the petitioner shall promptly inform the I.O. in writing.the petitioner shall promptly inform the I.O. in writing.

18.Since the petitioner is facing trial and is therefore appearing beforethe learned trial court from time-to-time, it is not considerednecessary to impose reporting requirement as condition of regularbail.the learned trial court from time-to-time, it is not considerednecessary to impose reporting requirement as condition of regularbail.

19.A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendentforthwith.forthwith.

20.The petition stands disposed-of.

21.Other pending applications, if any, are also disposed-of.

22.Needless to add that nothing in this order shall be taken as anexpression on the merits of the matter.expression on the merits of the matter.

DECEMBER 13, 2024ds

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J