Mr. Atul Varma, Mr. Nitin Kashyap, Mr. Bhavish Dhankar and Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Advocates v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

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 29/01/2025 at 12:19:30

4. Mr. Atul Varma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits, that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner, alongwith co-accused Hemant Kumar @ Lavkush, committed theft of property of the victim/Deepak Sikand (aged about 77 years) after the victim was drugged by co-accused Hemant Kumar @ Lavkush.

5. A perusal of the subject FIR shows that the complainant/Yogesh Sikand (who is victim’s wife and is herself about 75 years of age) alleges that on the intervening night of 17/18.09.2022, Hemant Kumar @ Lavkush attempted to poison/drug both her husband and her, by mixing an intoxicating substance in the tea that was served to them. At the relevant time, Hemant Kumar @ Lavkush was employed in their household as the husband’s attendant. She alleges that she did not consume the tea but her husband did; and after consuming the tea, he collapsed and had to be rushed to the B.L. Kapur Memorial Hospital, New Delhi where he was admitted to the ICU. Thereafter, when the complainant returned home, she found that the almirahs in their rooms were open and articles from inside were scattered; and the attendant i.e., Hemant Kumar @ Lavkush was missing. The contents of the tea-pot and of the cup from which the victim had consumed tea, as well as the victim’s blood and urine samples, tested positive for ‘benzodiazepine’.

6. Mr. Atul Varma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner - Pradeep Kumar - is not related to co- accused Hemant Kumar @ Lavkush, who (latter) was the person employed at the victim’s residence; and it is the admitted case of the prosecution that the petitioner is not the person who administered the This is a digitally signed order. BAIL APPLN. 2952/2024 Page 2 of 6 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 29/01/2025 at 12:19:30

8. intoxicating substance to the victim; nor was the petitioner present in the house when the crime is alleged to have been committed. Furthermore, Mr. Varma argues, that even going by the allegations in the subject FIR, the mere fact that the petitioner had accompanied co- accused Hemant Kumar @ Lavkush to a pharmacy for buying some sleeping pills does not constitute an incriminating circumstance against the petitioner. That apart, learned counsel argues that the petitioner has already suffered judicial custody of more than 02 years and 04 months as an under-trial, whereas only 04 out of 40 prosecution witnesses have so far been examined; that the trial is bound to take a long time to conclude; and in these circumstances, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on regular bail.

9. Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State submits, that the petitioner was traced by analysing the CDRs of Hemant Kumar @ Lavkush’s cell-phone number, which revealed that he was in regular contact with the present petitioner; whereafter the petitioner’s cell-phone number was surveilled and the petitioner was arrested on 22.09.2022 from his rented room in Krishna Vihar Colony, Lal Kuan, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh (‘U.P.’). It is further submitted that a cell-phone was recovered from the petitioner; and the CDRs of that cell-phone show that the petitioner was present at the place of incident at the relevant time.

10. Learned APP argues, that the allegations against the petitioner are that he, in concert with co-accused Hemant Kumar @ Lavkush, purchased the sleeping pills which were used to drug the victim from a This is a digitally signed order. BAIL APPLN. 2952/2024 Page 3 of 6 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 29/01/2025 at 12:19:30 pharmacist and also disposed-of the stolen articles by selling them to certain gold smiths/jewellery shops. She submits that several stolen articles have been recovered at the instance of the accused persons. 11. Most importantly, Ms. Arya argues that a sum of Rs.5 lacs was found to have been deposited in cash in the petitioner’s account at the Kotak Mahindra Bank on 19.09.2022 i.e. two days after the date of the incident on 17.09.2022. It is further contended that the CCTV footage of the area around the place of the incident shows the two co- accused persons running-away with bag-packs after committing the offence.

12. According to the prosecution, a stolen DVR, 04 watches, 01 silver colour bracelet and 01 perfume bottle have also been recovered from the petitioner’s rented room in Ghaziabad, U.P.; and the rest of the stolen articles were recovered from a gold-smith Komal Kumar, who says that he had purchased those articles from the co-accused persons. 13. On point of law, it is argued that since offences under sections 120- B/34 of the IPC have been alleged against the petitioner and charges to that effect have already been framed, the petitioner is also liable for the acts of co-accused Hemant Kumar @ Lavkush.

14. Upon being queried, Ms. Arya submits, though PW-1/ complainant has already deposed before the learned trial court, there are 11 other public witnesses who are yet to be examined; and that the petitioner may influence or threaten those witnesses if enlarged on bail. Learned APP further points-out that in her statement recorded before the learned trial court on 24.07.2024, the complainant has supported the case of the prosecution on every aspect; but insofar as This is a digitally signed order. BAIL APPLN. 2952/2024 Page 4 of 6 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 29/01/2025 at 12:19:30 the petitioner is concerned, the complainant is not the relevant witness and the prosecution case against the petitioner would be substantiated through other public witnesses, who are yet to be examined.

15. Learned APP points-out that the petitioner is ordinarily a resident of Bulandshahar, U.P., and may even flee from justice if he is granted regular bail.

16. Ms. Arya also draws attention to the fact that the petitioner has 02 other criminal involvements vide CC No. 1191/2021 and CC No. 1151/2021 under sections 8/21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 at P.S: Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad, U.P.

17. Upon a conspectus of the facts of the case, the following circumstances prevail with the court at this stage : 17.1. The prosecution has cited certain CCTV footage where the petitioner is seen running-away from the scene of the crime alongwith co-accused Hemant Kumar @ Lavkush carrying back-packs;

17.2. The petitioner is also alleged to have accompanied the co- accused at the time of purchasing sleeping pills from a pharmacist, and as per the prosecution, certain articles alleged to have been robbed were recovered from the petitioner’s rented room in Ghaziabad, U.P.;

17.3. And most significantly, a sum of Rs. 5 lacs is alleged to have been deposited in the petitioner’s bank account at Kotak Mahindra on 19.09.2022 i.e. two days after the date of the This is a digitally signed order. BAIL APPLN. 2952/2024 Page 5 of 6 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 29/01/2025 at 12:19:30 incident.

18. Accordingly, this court is not persuaded to admit the petitioner Pradeep Kumar s/o Hari Singh to regular bail, at least at this stage.

19. It is made clear however, that the petitioner shall be at liberty to seek the relief of regular bail after the remaining material public witnesses have been examined before the learned trial court.

20. The petition is dismissed in the above terms. 21. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed-of. JANUARY 20, 2025 V.Rawat ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J This is a digitally signed order. BAIL APPLN. 2952/2024 Page 6 of 6 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 29/01/2025 at 12:19:30