Ms. Sonal Singh, Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocates v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR

Judgment

1. Bhartiya Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) seeking grant of regular bail to the accused-Vishal Mehra in the FIR No. 372/2024 under Section 311/3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’) and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (‘Arms Act’) registered at Police Station (P.S) Gandhi Nagar.

2. The brief facts leading to the registration of the subject FIR as set out in the status report dated 12.02.2025 are as follows: It is stated that on

17.07.2024, a PCR call was received under GD No. 63A regarding an armed robbery. It is stated that the police responded to the crime scene at Property No. IX/2881-82, Gurudwara Gali, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi -31. It is stated that

the subject FIR was registered based on a complaint by Abhay Aggarwal, BAIL APPLN. 68/2025 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 17/03/2025 at 11:39:47 who reported that four (4) masked individuals entered his property, held him at gunpoint, and stole Rs. 1.5 lakh in cash.

3. It is stated that during the investigation, CCTV footage analysis led to the arrest of the Applicant/Vishal Mehra, along with co-accused Rakesh1 on

18.07.2024. It is stated that another co-accused, Rizwan, was arrested on

19.07.2024. It is stated that the motorcycle used in the crime was recovered from Rakesh, and Rs. 40,000 in stolen cash was recovered from Rizwan.

4. It is stated that further investigation led to the arrest of another co- accused, Adnan, on 22.07.2024. It is stated that the Adnan disclosed that the Applicant/Vishal Mehra, had arranged the weapon used in the robbery and that the stolen cash was with Rizwan. It is stated that following this disclosure, the police took both Applicant/Vishal Mehra and Rizwan into police custody. It is stated that a pistol with two live cartridges, allegedly used in the crime, was recovered from Applicant/Vishal Mehra. It is stated that co-accused Rizwan further disclosed that only Rs. 40,000/- remained from the stolen cash Rs. 1.5 lakh, as he had lost the rest in gambling.

5. It is stated that the recovered weapon and ammunition were found to match with the shells those retrieved from the crime scene. It is stated that these items were exhibited and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for expert analysis. It is stated that all search and seizure procedures conducted during the investigation were video-recorded using the E-Sakshya application.

6. It is stated that the chargesheet in the subject FIR was filed before the Trial Court on 12.03.2025. The Applicant/Vishal Mehra along with all other 1 @ Prince BAIL APPLN. 68/2025 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 17/03/2025 at 11:39:47 accused, has been charge-sheeted under Sections 309(4)/311/317(2)/3(5) of the BNS, as well as Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. Arguments of Applicant

7. Learned counsel for the Applicant/Vishal Mehra states that his client has been falsely implicated in the present case and has no involvement in the alleged robbery. She states that the Applicant is neither named in the FIR nor was he identified by the complainant. She states that apart from the disclosure statement of co-accused Adnan, there is no incriminating evidence in the chargesheet linking the Applicant to the alleged offence.

8. Regarding recovery of the alleged weapon Applicant/Vishal Mishra’s residence, he states that the police has fabricated this story. She states that no such recovery was actually made from Applicant’s house and that the police falsely planted the weapon to implicate him and complete the list of accused individuals.

9. She states that the investigating agency failed to comply with the mandatory requirements under Sections 105, 185, and 186 of the BNSS. She states that while the crime team had the capability to record videos and take photographs at the alleged crime scene, no such evidence was produced at the time of the supposed recovery of the weapon from the Applicant/Vishal Mehra’s residence. She states that this lack of visual documentation raises serious doubts about the authenticity of the recovery claim.

10. She states that there is no evidence on record to establish that the Applicant was present at the crime scene or had any role in the alleged offence. She states that there are no allegations that the Applicant used firearm during the crime or participated in the alleged robbery. BAIL APPLN. 68/2025 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 17/03/2025 at 11:39:47

11. She states that the prosecution has failed to provide any call detail records (CDR) linking the Applicant/Vishal Mehra to the other co-accused persons or placing him at the scene of the crime.

12. She states that since the chargesheet has already been filed, keeping the Applicant/Vishal Mehra in custody serves no further investigative purpose. She states that given that charges are yet to be framed and there are 19 witnesses to be examined the trial is expected to take a long time to conclude and the Applicant/Vishal Mehra cannot be kept in custody indefinitely.

13. She states that the Applicant is not visible or identifiable in the CCTV footage relied upon by the Respondent. She states that at the stage of bail considering the weak quality of the footage the benefit should accrue to the Applicant. Arguments of Respondent-State

14. Learned APP appearing for the Respondent-state strongly opposes the bail application, stating that the entire robbery incident was captured in CCTV footage. He states that although the assailants were wearing masks during the commission of offence, the police have obtained another CCTV recording for period approximately 20 minutes before the incident, in which all the accused, including the Applicant/Vishal Mehra, can be seen preparing for the offence.

15. He states that two live rounds were recovered from the residence of the Applicant/Vishal Mehra. He states that the forensic analysis confirmed that the live cartridges in the recovered pistol matched those used bullet found at the scene of crime, further establishing the Applicant/Vishal Mehra’s involvement. BAIL APPLN. 68/2025 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 17/03/2025 at 11:39:47

16. He states that a public witness, Sagar, was examined during the investigation. He states that the said witness identified the applicant through CCTV footage and stated that, 2-3 days before the robbery, Applicant/Vishal Mehra, along with co-accused, was inquiring about cash transactions conducted at the complainant’s office. He states that Sagar will be a crucial witness before the Trial Court.

17. He states that Applicant does not have clean criminal antecedents. He states that Applicant has also been accused in another FIR no. 91/2016 registered under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) at P.S. Gandhi Nagar . In this regard, learned counsel for the Applicant states that the Applicant has been acquitted in FIR No. 91/2016. Analysis and Findings

18. This Court had heard the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

19. Before delving into the analysis of the facts of this case, it would be apposite to refer to the factors which are to be taken into consideration for granting bail to an accused. The Supreme Court in the case of Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee2, State of Uttar Pradesh v. Amarmani Tripathi3, and Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh4 has set out the conditions to be considered by Court while granting bail, which are summarized as under: -