BAIL APPLN./4328/2024 of SHALIB @ SHALIM Vs THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+BAIL APPLN. 4328/2024

SHALIB @ SHALIM

.....Petitioner

Through:Mr. Ranvir Singh, Advocate.

versus

THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI.....RespondentThrough:Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for Statewith Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, SI, PS-MSPark.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

%15.01.2025

1.The present bail of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,[1]seekinggrant of bail in proceedings arising from FIR No. 54/2024 for offences underSections 392/394/398/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860[2]read with Section27 of the Arms Act, 1959,[3]registered at Police Station Mansarovar Park,Shahdara. Subsequently, chargesheet was filed wherein the Applicant wasalso charged with offences under Sections 398/395/397/412/120B/34 of theIPC read with Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.

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

2.1.On 20[th]January, 2024, PCR Call was received by Police StationMansarovar Park, Shahdara, which was recorded as DD No. 74A. When the

1 “CrPC”

2 “IPC”

3 “the Arms Act”

assigned Sub-Inspector, SI Bhojraj Singh arrived at the spot, he met theComplainant, Mr. Murari Chaudhary, who handed over mobile phonewhich was taken into possession through seizure memo. The Complainantstated that he looks after the sales work for Palak Textile Company. On 19[th]January, 2024, he had sold goods to one person, who had paid him INR1,30,000/- in cash. Since, he had to pay for labour and the transport vehiclesat the company’s warehouse, he kept the payment with him.

2.2.On 20[th]January, 2024, intending to make the payment, he carried themoney in blue-collared leather bag. However, he was unable to visit thewarehouse in Siraspur, and was heading home in his two-wheeler with thecash was still in his bag. While returning home, at about 8.30 PM, near S.KGlass and Aluminum Door, Motiram Road, Shahadara, he stopped his two-wheeler since vehicle was passing by. At that moment, two boysapproached him and one of them pushed him off the two-wheeler while theother boy grabbed his bag and both of them fled towards Loni Road. Heimmediately got up and ran behind him. With the help from an unknownbike rider and he followed the two boys, however, after going little further,near Shree Laxmi Traders, Loni Road, both the boys sat on two-wheelerand driver began speeding away. As soon he reached near them, one of theboys showed him pistol and threatened to shoot if he did not back off. TheComplainant being fearful of his life, stopped chasing them. After he cameback to his two-wheeler, he found mobile phone lying nearby from whichhe then called the police. On the basis of his statement, the present FIR wasregistered.

2.3.During the course of investigation, the police apprehended and

interrogated one Mr. Asif @ Bhayia on the basis of clue obtained throughthe mobile phone produced by Complainant. At the instance of Mr. Asif,police arrested two more persons namely, Mr. Shalib @ Shalim, theApplicant, and Mr. Faisal @ Munna.

2.4.During interrogation, the Applicant disclosed that he, along with theMr. Asif, Mr. Faisal and other accomplices, hatched conspiracy to rob theComplainant. The Applicant introduced one Mr. Arbaz to the other accusedpersons. Based on this disclosure, Mr. Arbaz was also arrested in the presentcase. Partial case property i.e. cash amounting to INR 6000/-, was recoveredfrom the Applicant which was taken into the police possession throughseizure memo. Further, Mr. Arbaz revealed that during the commission ofcrime, one Mr. Ajay, who is yet to be arrested, showed “Desi katta” to theComplainant and later Mr. Arbaz had purchased the said “Desi katta” alongwith the live rounds, from Mr. Ajay. These were then recovered from Mr.Arbaz. On the instance of Mr. Faisal, the two-wheeler which was used incommission of crime was also recovered.

2.5.Additionally, judicial Test Identification Parade for Mr. Arbaz andMr. Faisal and the stolen bag were conducted and Complainant identifiedthem correctly.

2.6.Further, the prosecution alleges that the Applicant has long standingacquaintance with the co-accused, Mr. Faisal as both resided nearby area.The Applicant also knows Mr. Arbaz as they both hail from the same villageand introduced Mr. Arbaz to the other accused persons and they informedthem of the conspiracy to rob the Complainant.

The Applicant admitted that he had received sum of INR 10,000/- as

his share from the robbed amount and partial case property i.e. INR 6,000/-was recovered on the basis of the disclosure made by the Applicant.

2.8.The Call Detail Records[4]of the accused persons revealed that Mr.Faisal and the Applicant contacted each other before and after incident on20[th]January, 2024.

2.9.As per the location chart, location of the Applicant’s mobile was seenat Gandhi Nagar, Naveen Shahdara, Maujpur and Bihari Colony, Shahdarabefore and after the incident that occurred on 20[th]January, 2024.

3.In this background, counsel for the Applicant submits the following insupport of his request for bail:

3.1.The Applicant has been falsely implicated on the basis of thedisclosure statement of co-accused Mr. Asif, apart from which no reliableevidence has been gathered against the Applicant.

3.2.The communication between the Applicant and the co-accused personis also insufficient as they are known to each other.

3.3.As regards the alleged recovery of INR 6,000/- from the Applicant, itis contended that without any specific identification mark on the currencynotes, recovery of amount alone is not sufficient to suggest the involvementof the Applicant in the present conspiracy.

3.4.Additionally, apart from the one public witness who is stated to havehelped the Complainant, no other public witnesses have been cited despitethe incident taking place at busy road. This also casts doubt over theprosecution’s story.

3.5.The Applicant has been in custody for nearly one year and since,

4 “CDRs”

investigation has been completed, no purpose will be served by keeping theApplicant in judicial custody.

4.Contrarily, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for State, strongly opposes thebail application and submits that the facts outlined above clearly establishthe Applicant’s involvement. He highlights that the Applicant’s previousbail requests have been rejected by the Trial Court on two occasions, asnoted in orders dated 16[th]March, 2024 and 14[th]May, 2024, while thirdbail application was withdrawn, as recorded in the order dated 30[th]September, 2024. Additionally, the bail application of co-accused, Mr.Asif, was dismissed by the Trial Court on 15[th]October, 2024. Mr. Kumarfurther contends that the recovery of cash attributed to the Applicant servesas compelling evidence of his involvement. He emphasizes that thedisclosure statements directly implicate the Applicant, reinforcing theargument that he should not be granted bail.

5.The Court has considered the facts and the submissions advanced. It iswell established through catena of judgments by the Supreme Court that theobject of granting bail is neither punitive nor preventative. The primary aimsought to be achieved by bail is to secure the attendance of the accusedperson at the trial.[5]

6.Pertinently, in the present case, the chargesheet has already been filed,indicating that the investigation is complete. Consequently, the Petitioner isno longer required for any ongoing investigation. The prosecution’s casealleging the Petitioner’s involvement primarily hinges on disclosurestatements and the purported recovery of currency notes, both of which will

5 See also: Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40; Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of

BAIL APPLN. 4328/2024

need to be substantiated during the trial. As regards the currency notesallegedly recovered from the Applicant, the Court prima facie finds merit inthe Applicant’s contention that the recovered currency notes bear no specificidentification marks linking them to the crime scene. This lack of distinctiveevidence diminishes the probative value of the recovery. Additionally, theApplicant has no prior criminal record and his antecedents reflect cleanhistory. In light of these factors, the Court is inclined to enlarge theApplicant on bail, subject to appropriate conditions to ensure his presenceduring trial proceedings.

7.Therefore, the Applicant is directed to be released on bail onfurnishing personal bond for sum of INR 50,000/- with one surety of thelike amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, on the followingconditions:

a.The Applicant shall cooperate in any further investigation as andwhen 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 ortamper with the evidence of the case, in any manner whatsoever;

c.The Applicant shall under no circumstance leave the bounds of DelhiNCR without informing the concerned IO;

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

e.The Applicant shall provide the address where he would be residingafter his release and shall not change the address without informing the

Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51.

concerned IO/ SHO.

f.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 also not be taken as an expression of opinion onthe merits of the case.

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

JANUARY 15, 2025nk

SANJEEV NARULA, J