Vishal Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Broadly speaking, allegation of prosecution against the accused/applicant is that he tipped off the co-accused persons that two officials of the company in which he was working would be carrying cash

¶14

BAIL APPLN.1810/2026 Page 1 of 4 pages

¶15

GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.05.18 05:20:52 +05'30'

¶16

Signature Not Verified

¶17

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL YADAV Signing Da te:1 8.05.2026 17:46:45

¶18

amount of Rs. 25,31,000/-, after which the co-accused persons allegedly committed robbery of that amount and fled the spot. Further as per prosecution, the accused/applicant was apprehended and arrested with the help of technical surveillance and secret information.

¶19

Against the above backdrop, learned counsel for accused/applicant submits that it is the accused/applicant who had personally gone to the police station in compliance with the notice under Section 179 BNSS and he was arrested. It is also contended that there is no legally admissible evidence against the accused/applicant since even the alleged recovery of money was not from possession of the accused/applicant but from someone else. It is submitted that the accused/applicant a young boy is in jail for more than 15 months.

¶20

Learned APP assisted by IO/SI Nishant opposes the bail application on the ground that the accused/applicant was a conduit, who facilitated the alleged robbery. It is further submitted that bail application of the coaccused Ashu Khan was withdrawn today itself because the victim and the eyewitness are to be examined before the trial court on 02.06.2026. It is also submitted by learned APP for State that post-offence conduct of the accused/applicant is a significant pointer to his complicity, because after the alleged robbery, he stopped going to office and ultimately resigned.

¶21

So far as the witnesses to be examined before the trial court are

¶22

BAIL APPLN.1810/2026

¶23

Page 2 of 4 pages

¶24

GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.05.18 05:20:31 +05'30'

¶25

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL YADAV Signing Da te:1 8.05.2026 17:46:45

¶26

concerned, admittedly, going by the role ascribed to the accused/applicant, their testimony would not deal with him. That being so, withdrawal of bail application by co-accused Ashu Khan would not be relevant.

¶27

As regards the material against the accused/applicant, it is submitted by learned APP on instructions of the IO that there was one Facebook Messenger call between the present accused/applicant and one of the alleged robbers; and that the mobile phone of the accused/applicant has been sent for forensic analysis in this regard.

¶28

As regards the so-called post-offence conduct, I am not convinced with the argument. For, even according to prosecution the accused/applicant was only a peon in the office and it is not difficult to believe that in such situation, under fear of police a person would stop going to office. Merely because the accused/applicant stopped going to the office, he cannot be taken to be culpable in the alleged offence.

¶29

Keeping in mind the aforesaid, I find no reason to further deprive liberty to the accused/applicant.

¶30

Therefore, the bail application is allowed and accused/applicant is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. Accompanying application stands disposed of.

¶31

BAIL APPLN.1810/2026 Page 3 of 4 pages

¶32

GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.05.18 05:20:11 +05'30'

¶33

Signature Not Verified

¶34

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL YADAV Signing Da te:1 8.05.2026 17:46:45

¶35

A copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the concerned Jail Superintendent for informing the accused/applicant.

¶36

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afe
GIRISH c45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1
KATHPALIA 5570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff8
01e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.05.18 05:19:26 +05'30'

¶37

GIRISH KATHPALIA (JUDGE)

¶38

MAY 18, 2026/ ry

¶39

BAIL APPLN.1810/2026

¶40

Page 4 of 4 pages

¶41

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL YADAV Signing Da te:1 8.05.2026 17:46:45

Vishal v. State of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal v. State of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rohit Negi Vs State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Sanjeev Bansal Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Balaji Venketest & Ors. Vs State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Ashanand Saini@Anand Saini Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Mr Ankit Verma & Ors. Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Varun Arora (in Jc) Vs the State of NCT of Delhi