Mr. Anil Dutt Sharma, Advocate v. STATE NCT OF DELHI

FIR No. 0534/2021 registered under Sections 364A/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603 read with Sections 25/27 of Arms Act, 1959 registered at P.S., Patparganj Industrial Area, Delhi. The case of the prosecution is as follows:

2. 2.1 On 18th December, 2021, a PCR call vide DD No. 18-A was received at PS Patparganj Industrial Area regarding the kidnapping of a boy from Ghazipur Flower Market and a ransom demand of Rs. 50 lakh. On the basis of the statement of the Complainant/Victim, Sh. Kinshuk Aggarwal a case bearing FIR No. 534/2021 was registered. The Complainant alleged that on 1 “BNSS” 2 “Cr.P.C.” 3 “IPC” BAIL APPLN. 2187/2024 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 24/03/2025 at 14:29:23 17th December, 2021, at approximately 6:30 AM, he, along with his driver Jitender and decorator Richa, were kidnapped at gunpoint by an unknown person. The kidnapper contacted the victim’s father, Sh. Vikash Aggarwal, via WhatsApp, initially demanding Rs. 1 crore, later reducing the demand to Rs. 50 lakh. Following negotiations, the ransom was paid by the Victim’s father, who was called to the location, leading to the kidnapper releasing the victim, his driver Jitender, and Richa at the telephone exchange in Ashok Vihar. The kidnapper then took the victim’s father with him in the victim’s car. Later, the kidnapper got out of the car near Radisson Hotel, Paschim Vihar, Delhi, with the money bag in hand.

2.2 During the investigation, the CCTV footage showed that Gurmeet Singh was seen near Chotu Ram Dharmshala holding packets of money in his hands. After analysis of the CCTV footage the accused was identified as Gurmeet Singh @Sheru. On 24th December, 2021, Gurmeet Singh and his associate Kamal were arrested, and ₹6 lakh was recovered from Kamal’s residence. Further analysis of Call Data Records4 revealed that the accused Gurmeet Singh (Applicant herein), Richa and her mother Anita Kapoor had been in contact with each other since a long time. It was discovered that Gurmeet Singh intended to marry Richa, but due to Anita Kapoor’s debts, she proposed that he repay them before marriage. Consequently, the three hatched a conspiracy to kidnap Kinshuk Aggarwal and demanded a ransom for his release.

2.3. On 24th December, 2021, Richa and Anita Kapoor were arrested, with Rs. 20 lakhs recovered from Anita Kapoor’s residence and Rs. 10 lakhs from the possession of Richa. The weapon of offence i.e., toy gun used in BAIL APPLN. 2187/2024 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 24/03/2025 at 14:29:23 the crime was also recovered from Gurmeet Singh. Out of the total ransom, Rs. 41.03 lakh was recovered during the investigation.

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

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

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

3.1 The Applicant has been in judicial custody since 24th December,

2021. The trial is the stage of prosecution evidence and only 3 out of 30 witnesses have been examined so far. The conclusion of trial is nowhere in sight.

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

3.3. The main witnesses already stand examined and there is no chance to tamper with evidence.

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

4. Per contra, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State, strongly opposes the bail application. He submits that the offence committed by the Applicant is of grave nature and there is strong apprehension that he can hamper the process of the trial. The weapon of offence i.e., toy gun used in the crime was recovered from the Applicant. Additionally, the Complainant and his 4 CDRs BAIL APPLN. 2187/2024 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 24/03/2025 at 14:29:23 father have identified the Applicant when he was taken in police custody. Thus, there is enough evidence to implicate the Applicant. Furthermore, the witnesses, from whom the CCTV footages recording the incident have been recovered, are yet to be examined. Thus, there is likelihood of the Applicant influencing these witnesses. In light of these grounds, Mr. Kumar submits that bail should be denied to the Applicant.

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

6. Nonetheless, it is well established through catena of judgments by the Supreme Court that the object of granting bail is neither punitive nor preventative. The primary aim sought to be achieved by bail is to secure the attendance of the accused person at the trial.5 Pertinently, the investigation in the present case has been concluded, and the trial is at the stage of prosecution evidence. The main witnesses i.e., the Complainant, his father

FIR No. 0534/2021 registered under Sections 364A/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603 read with Sections 25/27 of Arms Act, 1959 registered at P.S., Patparganj Industrial Area, Delhi. The case of the prosecution is as follows:

2. 2.1 On 18th December, 2021, a PCR call vide DD No. 18-A was received at PS Patparganj Industrial Area regarding the kidnapping of a boy from Ghazipur Flower Market and a ransom demand of Rs. 50 lakh. On the basis of the statement of the Complainant/Victim, Sh. Kinshuk Aggarwal a case bearing FIR No. 534/2021 was registered. The Complainant alleged that on 1 “BNSS” 2 “Cr.P.C.” 3 “IPC” BAIL APPLN. 2187/2024 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 24/03/2025 at 14:29:23 17th December, 2021, at approximately 6:30 AM, he, along with his driver Jitender and decorator Richa, were kidnapped at gunpoint by an unknown person. The kidnapper contacted the victim’s father, Sh. Vikash Aggarwal, via WhatsApp, initially demanding Rs. 1 crore, later reducing the demand to Rs. 50 lakh. Following negotiations, the ransom was paid by the Victim’s father, who was called to the location, leading to the kidnapper releasing the victim, his driver Jitender, and Richa at the telephone exchange in Ashok Vihar. The kidnapper then took the victim’s father with him in the victim’s car. Later, the kidnapper got out of the car near Radisson Hotel, Paschim Vihar, Delhi, with the money bag in hand.

2.2 During the investigation, the CCTV footage showed that Gurmeet Singh was seen near Chotu Ram Dharmshala holding packets of money in his hands. After analysis of the CCTV footage the accused was identified as Gurmeet Singh @Sheru. On 24th December, 2021, Gurmeet Singh and his associate Kamal were arrested, and ₹6 lakh was recovered from Kamal’s residence. Further analysis of Call Data Records4 revealed that the accused Gurmeet Singh (Applicant herein), Richa and her mother Anita Kapoor had been in contact with each other since a long time. It was discovered that Gurmeet Singh intended to marry Richa, but due to Anita Kapoor’s debts, she proposed that he repay them before marriage. Consequently, the three hatched a conspiracy to kidnap Kinshuk Aggarwal and demanded a ransom for his release.

2.3. On 24th December, 2021, Richa and Anita Kapoor were arrested, with Rs. 20 lakhs recovered from Anita Kapoor’s residence and Rs. 10 lakhs from the possession of Richa. The weapon of offence i.e., toy gun used in BAIL APPLN. 2187/2024 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 24/03/2025 at 14:29:23 the crime was also recovered from Gurmeet Singh. Out of the total ransom, Rs. 41.03 lakh was recovered during the investigation.

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

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

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

3.1 The Applicant has been in judicial custody since 24th December,

2021. The trial is the stage of prosecution evidence and only 3 out of 30 witnesses have been examined so far. The conclusion of trial is nowhere in sight.

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

3.3. The main witnesses already stand examined and there is no chance to tamper with evidence.

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

4. Per contra, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State, strongly opposes the bail application. He submits that the offence committed by the Applicant is of grave nature and there is strong apprehension that he can hamper the process of the trial. The weapon of offence i.e., toy gun used in the crime was recovered from the Applicant. Additionally, the Complainant and his 4 CDRs BAIL APPLN. 2187/2024 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 24/03/2025 at 14:29:23 father have identified the Applicant when he was taken in police custody. Thus, there is enough evidence to implicate the Applicant. Furthermore, the witnesses, from whom the CCTV footages recording the incident have been recovered, are yet to be examined. Thus, there is likelihood of the Applicant influencing these witnesses. In light of these grounds, Mr. Kumar submits that bail should be denied to the Applicant.

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

6. Nonetheless, it is well established through catena of judgments by the Supreme Court that the object of granting bail is neither punitive nor preventative. The primary aim sought to be achieved by bail is to secure the attendance of the accused person at the trial.5 Pertinently, the investigation in the present case has been concluded, and the trial is at the stage of prosecution evidence. The main witnesses i.e., the Complainant, his father