Allowed

Sunny v. State of N.C.T of Delhi

Delhi HC10 May 2024BAIL APPLN./526/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application for robbery, the Court noted contradictions in robbing amount and lack of recovery of weapon or location-establishing CDR. Finding no evidence of flight risk, the Court granted bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail on personal bond of Rs. 25,000/ and one surety bond of like amount subject to conditions.

Sunny Vs State of N.C.T of Delhi — Cheating and Forgery | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~8

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- BAIL APPLN. 526/2024 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 265/2024

¶4

SUNNY ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Ms. Sonal Singh Godara and Mr. Sagar Panghal, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE OF N.C.T OF DELHI ..... Respondent

¶8

Through: Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP for State with SI S.K. Jha, SI Ghan Shyam PS Sarai Rohilla

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN O R D E R % 10.05.2024

¶11

The present petition has been filed under Section 439 CrPC seeking regular bail in connection with FIR No. 248/2023 under Sections 392/394/395/397/412/120B/34 IPC registered at PS Sarai Rohilla.

¶12

The FIR was registered on the basis of the statement of the complainant i.e. Pawan Kumar Jain wherein he alleged that on 13.04.2023 at about 8PM his car was stopped by three Motorcycle borne riders who were armed with pistols. They broke the window glass of the driver seat by hitting the glass hard with the butt of the pistol and forcibly took out the keys of the car. The complainant was hit on his chest and hand with the butt of pistol and thereafter two bags containing an amount of Rs 16 lakhs and 5 lakhs which he was carrying were robbed by the said three accused persons who fled away on their motorcycle.

¶13

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/05/2024 at 11:48:30

¶14

It is thus, the case of the prosecution that the complainant was robbed of an amount of Rs 21 lakhs by the accused persons.

¶15

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the case of the prosecution as borne out from the FIR is contrary to the very first version given by the complainant over telephone by dialing at number 100 wherein he stated that persons had robbed him of an amount of Rs. 1 –

¶16

1.5 Lakhs in respect of which DD Entry 128A dated 13.04.2023 was recorded.

¶17

She submits that the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence, rather on the said date the petitioner was at Jaipur and there is no CDR location establishing the petitioner’s presence at the place of occurrence.

¶18

It is further contended that no offence weapon was recovered from the petitioner. Only an amount of Rs. 40,000/- was recovered from the petitioner which was available at his residence, though the said amount does not pertain to the incident of robbery.

¶19

She submits that there is also a contradiction in the prosecution version as regard the number of accused who had committed the robbery. It is in the statement of the complainant that three persons had robbed him whereas one eye witness namely Manoj, whose statement was recorded by the IO, has stated that the number of persons who robbed the complainant were 05 in number, whereas now 07 persons have been arraigned as an accused in the chargesheet.

¶20

She further submits that the petitioner is aged about 26 years and has clean antecedents. Further, the petitioner is a permanent resident of Aligarh and is not a flight risk.

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/05/2024 at 11:48:30

¶23

Per contra, the learned APP has argued on the lines of the status report. He clarifies that the CDR shows that the petitioner was in contact with the other co-accused and the prosecution is still in the process of procuring the CDR to verify the petitioner’s location at the time of occurrence.

¶24

He submits that the petitioner had refused to participate in the TIP proceedings. Further, 05 persons actually committed robbery but two more persons were involved in the conspiracy, therefore, 07 persons have been arraigned as an accused. He also contends that the present petitioner was very much present at the place of incident.

¶25

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as, learned APP for the State and have perused the material on record. 12. It is not in dispute that the DD entry recorded on the phone call made by the complainant by dialling 100 shows that he had stated that 03 persons have committed robbery and have robbed him of an amount of Rs. 1 – 1.5 Lakhs. However, the FIR reveals that the complainant was robbed of Rs. 21 Lakhs. Therefore, there is an evident contradiction in the figure of robbed amount given by the complainant at the initial stage, as well as, in the subsequent complaint which culminated into the FIR.

¶26

Admittedly, no recovery of any offence weapon has been made from the present petitioner. The only recovery is of an amount of Rs. 40,000/which the learned counsel for the petitioner states was an amount belonging to the family of the petitioner. Even otherwise, recovery is not a substantive piece of evidence.

¶27

Further, no CDR is available to establish petitioner’s presence at the place of occurrence. The CDR indicating that the petitioner was in contact

¶28

This is a digitally signed order.

¶29

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/05/2024 at 11:48:30

¶30

with an accused does not establish petitioner’s involvement in the commission of offence. It is trite that conviction cannot be based solely on the basis of CDRs as the same are only corroborative piece of evidence.

¶31

On a query posed by the Court, the learned APP, on instructions from the IO who is present in Court, states that no further recovery is required to be made from the petitioner. He also affirm that the petitioner does not have any criminal record nor it is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner is a flight risk.

¶32

Considering the aforesaid facts in entirety, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of regular bail. Accordingly, the petitioner is enlarged on bail subject to his furnishing a Personal Bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- and one Surety Bond of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/CMM/Duty Magistrate, further subject to the following conditions:-

¶33

a) Petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when the matter is taken up for hearing.

¶34

b) Petitioner shall provide mobile number to the IO concerned which shall be kept in working condition at all times and he shall not change the mobile number without prior intimation to the Investigating Officer concerned.

¶35

c) Petitioner shall not indulge in any criminal activity and shall not communicate with or come in contact with the witnesses.

¶36

The petition stands disposed of.

¶37

It is made clear that nothing stated above is to be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

¶38

Copy of the order be forwarded to the concerned Jail Superintendent

¶39

This is a digitally signed order.

¶40

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/05/2024 at 11:48:30

¶41

for necessary compliance and information.

¶42

Order dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

¶43

Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

¶44

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J

¶45

MAY 10, 2024 N.S. ASWAL

¶46

This is a digitally signed order.

¶47

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/05/2024 at 11:48:30

Sunny v. State of N.C.T of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunny v. State of N.C.T of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaideep Solanki Vs the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Daljeet Sharma & Ors. Vs the State & Anr.

Neeraj Sharma & Anr. Vs the State & Anr.

Shashank Singh Vs the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Mahipal Vs State(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

Sandeep Mann & Anr. Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr.