BAIL APPLN./2187/2024 of GURMEET SINGH@ SHERU Vs STATE NCT OF DELHI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+BAIL APPLN. 2187/2024

GURMEET SINGH@ SHERU

.....Petitioner

Through:Mr. Anil Dutt Sharma, Advocate.

versus

STATE NCT OF DELHI.....Respondent

Through:Mr. Sandeep Kumar, SI, PS-PIA.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

20.03.2025

1.The present application filed under Section 482 of the BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023[1](formerly Section 439 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973[2]) seeks regular bail in proceedings arising fromFIR No. 0534/2021 registered under Sections 364A/506 of the Indian PenalCode, 1860[3]read with Sections 25/27 of Arms Act, 1959 registered at P.S.,Patparganj Industrial Area, Delhi.

2.The case of the prosecution is as follows:

2.1On 18[th]December, 2021, PCR call vide DD No. 18-A was receivedat PS Patparganj Industrial Area regarding the kidnapping of boy fromGhazipur Flower Market and ransom demand of Rs. 50 lakh. On the basisof the statement of the Complainant/Victim, Sh. Kinshuk Aggarwal casebearing FIR No. 534/2021 was registered. The Complainant alleged that on

1 “BNSS”

2 “Cr.P.C.”

3 “IPC”

BAIL APPLN. 2187/2024

17[th]December, 2021, at approximately 6:30 AM, he, along with his driverJitender and decorator Richa, were kidnapped at gunpoint by an unknownperson. The kidnapper contacted the victim’s father, Sh. Vikash Aggarwal,via WhatsApp, initially demanding Rs. 1 crore, later reducing the demand toRs. 50 lakh. Following negotiations, the ransom was paid by the Victim’sfather, who was called to the location, leading to the kidnapper releasing thevictim, his driver Jitender, and Richa at the telephone exchange in AshokVihar. The kidnapper then took the victim’s father with him in the victim’scar. Later, the kidnapper got out of the car near Radisson Hotel, PaschimVihar, Delhi, with the money bag in hand.

2.2During the investigation, the CCTV footage showed that GurmeetSingh was seen near Chotu Ram Dharmshala holding packets of money inhis hands. After analysis of the CCTV footage the accused was identified asGurmeet Singh @Sheru. On 24[th]December, 2021, Gurmeet Singh and hisassociate Kamal were arrested, and ₹6 lakh was recovered from Kamal’s residence. Further analysis of Call Data Records[4]revealed that the accusedGurmeet Singh (Applicant herein), Richa and her mother Anita Kapoor hadbeen in contact with each other since long time. It was discovered thatGurmeet Singh intended to marry Richa, but due to Anita Kapoor’s debts,she proposed that he repay them before marriage. Consequently, the threehatched conspiracy to kidnap Kinshuk Aggarwal and demanded ransomfor his release.

2.3.On 24[th]December, 2021, Richa and Anita Kapoor were arrested, withRs. 20 lakhs recovered from Anita Kapoor’s residence and Rs. 10 lakhsfrom the possession of Richa. The weapon of offence i.e., toy gun used in

the crime was also recovered from Gurmeet Singh. Out of the total ransom,Rs. 41.03 lakh was recovered during the investigation.

2.4During further investigation the accused Gurmeet Singh refused tojoin TIP proceedings. However, he was correctly identified by the victimand his father during police custody.

2.5.The Trial is at the stage of prosecution evidence. Total 3 out of 30witnesses examined so far.

3.The Applicant submits that he has been falsely implicated and urgesthe following grounds for seeking bail:

3.1The Applicant has been in judicial custody since 24[th]December,2021. The trial is the stage of prosecution evidence and only 3 out of 30witnesses have been examined so far. The conclusion of trial is nowhere insight.

3.2.There are several contradictions in the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-

2.3.3.The main witnesses already stand examined and there is no chance totamper with evidence.

3.4.The co-accused Anita Kapoor and Richa have already been grantedbail. The co-accused kamal has been discharged. Thus, even on grounds ofparity the Applicant is entitled to bail.

4.Per contra, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State, strongly opposesthe bail application. He submits that the offence committed by the Applicantis of grave nature and there is strong apprehension that he can hamper theprocess of the trial. The weapon of offence i.e., toy gun used in the crimewas recovered from the Applicant. Additionally, the Complainant and his

4 CDRs

father have identified the Applicant when he was taken in police custody.Thus, there is enough evidence to implicate the Applicant. Furthermore, thewitnesses, from whom the CCTV footages recording the incident have beenrecovered, are yet to be examined. Thus, there is likelihood of the Applicantinfluencing these witnesses. In light of these grounds, Mr. Kumar submitsthat bail should be denied to the Applicant.

5.This Court has considered the submissions advanced by both theparties. The Applicant’s case is that he has been falsely implicated.Although the Complainant is said to have identified the Applicant as thekidnapper, PW-1 (the Complainant) testified that the kidnapper was wearinga mask during the incident and that he recognized the kidnapper based on hiseyes and body. Counsel for the Applicant argues that the Applicant wasshown to them after being taken into police custody and that is how theyhave identified the Applicant. He also emphasises that the CCTV footage isunclear, and the same raises doubts about the prosecution’s case and theaccuracy of the kidnapper’s identity. These contentions merit consideration,but would have to be determined on the basis of evidence adduced by theApplicant, at the appropriate stage.

6.Nonetheless, it is well established through catena of judgments by theSupreme Court that the object of granting bail is neither punitive norpreventative. The primary aim sought to be achieved by bail is to secure theattendance of the accused person at the trial.[5]Pertinently, the investigationin the present case has been concluded, and the trial is at the stage ofprosecution evidence. The main witnesses i.e., the Complainant, his father

5 See also: Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40; Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau ofInvestigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51.Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51.

and the driver Jitender have been examined. Furthermore, only 3 out of 30witnesses have been examined so far and the trial will take considerableamount of time. As per the nominal roll, as on 5[th]March 2023, the Applicanthas been in custody for more than 3 years 2 months. Given that theinvestigation has been completed, all necessary evidence has been placedbefore the Trial Court, and the main witnesses have been examined, thecontinued detention of the Applicant would not serve any furtherinvestigative purpose. Additionally, the co-accused Richa, who was knownto the Victim and his family and from whom recovery of Rs. 10 Lakhs hadbeen made, was granted bail by the Trial Court on 8[th]December, 2022. TheApplicant has clean antecedents.

7.In view of the foregoing, the present application is allowed and theApplicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond fora sum of INR 50,000/- with one surety of the like amount, subject to thesatisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty MM, on the following conditions:

a.The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case ortamper with the evidence of the case, in any manner whatsoever;

b.The Applicant shall under no circumstance leave the country withoutthe permission of the Trial Court;

c.The Applicant shall appear before the Trial Court as and whendirected;

d.The Applicant shall provide the address where he would be residingafter his release and shall not change the address without informing theconcerned IO/ SHO;

e.The Applicant shall, upon his release, give his mobile number to theconcerned IO/SHO and shall keep his mobile phone switched on at all times;8.In the event of there being any FIR/DD entry/complaint lodgedagainst the Applicant, it would be open to the State to seek redressal byfiling an application seeking cancellation of bail.

9.It is clarified that any observations made in the present order are forthe purpose of deciding the present bail application and should not influencethe outcome of the trial and shall also not be taken as an expression ofopinion on the merits of the case.

10.The bail application is allowed in the afore-mentioned terms.

MARCH 20, 2025nk

SANJEEV NARULA, J