Mr. Satyam Thareja, Adv. (DHCLSC) with Mr. Shaurya Katuch, Adv v. THE STATE

of Regular Bail in FIR No. 618/2021 registered for offence under Sections 395/412/120B/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) registered at Police Station (PS) Mehrauli (South). 2. The Applicant herein had moved 5th application for Bail before the Trial Court. The Trial Court on the grounds of seriousness of allegations, and mode and manner of commission of offences dismissed the said application vide order 06.09.2024. Brief Facts 3. As per the case of prosecution the complainant i.e., Shanky Sharma on

06.08.2021 got registered an e-FIR No. 0618/2021 under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) regarding theft. It is stated that thereafter, the BAIL APPLN. 4467/2024 Page 1 of 9 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 25/02/2025 at 12:46:17 statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 161 the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr. P.C.’) wherein he stated that four (4) persons entered forcefully into the house and Rs. 1,21,58,000/- were robbed at gun and knife point from J-41/42 Paryawaran Complex, Saidulajab, New Delhi. 3.1. It is stated that during the investigation through a CCTV footage it was identified that one Innova Car bearing No. GJ-01-HM-9373 (‘said Innova Car’) was used in commission of the offence of robbery. It is stated that owner of the said Car was one Kulbadan Rajbhar. It is stated that Kulbadan Rajbhar was interrogated and he revealed that the said Innova Car was rented out to one Sunil, who had further handed over the said car on rent to one Rajkumar Rajput (the co-accused who is absconding). 3.2. It is stated that on secret information said Innova Car was recovered on

11.08.2021 from an under-construction building at Roop Avenue Vatva, Ahmedabad, Gujarat. It is stated that on enquiry it was found that co-accused Rajkumar Rajput was living with his family at the same place from where the Innova Car was recovered. It is stated that raid was conducted at Rajkumar Rajput’s house where accused Rajkumar Rajput and his brother Amit Rajput (who is a co-accused in the captioned FIR) were not found and instead their father i.e., Narender Singh was found and key of the Innova Car was recovered from his possession. It is stated that Rs. 8,60,000/- were recovered from the house of Rajkumar Rajput at the instance of his father. It is stated that Narender Singh father of the accused persons was aware about the involvement of said Innova Car in the robbery and about the money recovered from the house being robbed money. Narender Singh was also arrested on

11.08.2021. BAIL APPLN. 4467/2024 Page 2 of 9 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 25/02/2025 at 12:46:17

3.3. It is stated that on 12.08.2021, PS Mehrauli (South) received an information that three accused i.e., (i) Prakash alias Bakka alias Pakka; (ii) Sahil Patel and (iii) Harsh alias Sunny, were arrested by the Crime Branch, Shakarpur, New Delhi vide Kalandra under Section 41 of the Cr.P.C. It is stated that during the PC remand of the said three (3) accused persons all of them were taken to Ahmedabad, Gujarat and at their instance present Applicant/accused Jagdish Narbahadur Gorkha was arrested on 17.08.2021. It is stated that Rs. 1,46,000/- and a car i.e., XUV 500 bearing registration number GJ-18-BG-4664 was recovered from his possession. The accused informed the police that said XUV 500 was purchased using the money robbed. 3.4. It is stated that further during the PC remand, Rs. 3,06,000/- and Rs. 3,39,000/- were recovered at the instance of accused persons Prakash and Harish respectively from their respective houses. 3.5. It is stated that during investigation, eight (8) days PC remand of Applicant/Jagdish was secured and he was taken to Ahmedabad, Gujarat where at his instance Rs. 27 Lakhs were recovered from his house. 3.6. It is stated that during further investigation name of three (3) other accused came to light i.e., (i) Amit; (ii) Raj Kumar; and (iii) Nikhil and it was revealed they were also involved in the said offence of robbery. 3.7. It is stated that chargesheet against the Applicant and accused was filed on 08.11.2021. It is stated that supplementary chargesheet with respect to the co-accused Amit and Nikhil was filed on 01.07.2022. It is stated that accused Raj Kumar is still absconding and chargesheet against him has not been filed. BAIL APPLN. 4467/2024 Page 3 of 9 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 25/02/2025 at 12:46:17 Arguments of the Applicant 4. Learned counsel for the Applicant states that the Applicant had moved an application before the Sessions Judge for praying for grant of bail and the said application was dismissed by the Sessions Judge vide the impugned order dated 06.09.2024 without appreciating the case of the Applicant. 4.1. He states that the investigation of the case qua the Applicant is already over and hence the Applicant if enlarged on bail cannot possibly create any hindrance in the investigation and there is no likelihood of tampering of evidences. 4.2. He states that the Applicant herein is in custody since more than 3 years from the date of his arrest i.e., 16.08.2021. He states that even after 3 years the trial is still at the stage of Prosecution Evidence (PE). He states that there are 29 witnesses to be examined and considering the current pace of the trial, it will take considerable time for the trial to conclude. 4.3. He states that the alleged incident had occurred on 02.08.2021 and the complaint was registered on 06.08.2021 that is after delay of four (4) days. 4.4. He states that the Applicant was released on three (3) occasions on interim bail and has never misused the liberty granted by this Court and Trial Court. 4.5. He states that the Applicant has two (2) minor children who do not have anyone to take care of them as they are staying with the mother of the Applicant, who herself is old and suffering from various ailments. 4.6. He states that the Applicant has earlier been out on bail on three (3) occasions and has not misused the liberty granted by this Court and the Trial Court. BAIL APPLN. 4467/2024 Page 4 of 9 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 25/02/2025 at 12:46:17 Arguments of the State 5. In reply, Mr. Khanna, learned APP states that the offence was committed by the accused persons including the Applicant herein on gun and knife point. 5.1. He states that at the instance of the Applicant Rs. 27,00,000/- was recovered along with the toy gun which was used in the commission of the offence from his house. He further states that substantial recoveries have been made from the accused persons corroborating with the version of the complainant. 5.2. He states that the Registration Certificate of the said Innova Car GJ-01-HM-9373 used during the commission of offence of robbery was recovered from his possession. 5.3. He states that during the Judicial TIP, an eye witness namely Abbas Khan successfully identified the Applicant as one of the persons who had committed the offence of robbery. 5.4. He states that charges in the present matter have been framed on

30.11.2024 under Sections 395/412/120B/506/201 IPC and the witness i.e., complainant has been summoned for his examination on 25.02.2025. He further states that material witness including three (3) eye-witnesses (i.e., Abbas Khan, Vivek and Krishan Kumar) are yet to be examined. 5.5. He states that supplementary chargesheet qua accused Amit and Nikhil has been filed before the Trial Court. He states however, the accused Raj Kumar is still evading his arrest and is absconding. 5.6. He states that the Applicant herein is also an accused in CR No. 105/2016, SC No. 42/2018 under Sections 454/380/411/413/114 of the IPC at PS Isanpur, Ahmedabad, Gujarat and is currently on bail in the said matter. He BAIL APPLN. 4467/2024 Page 5 of 9 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 25/02/2025 at 12:46:17 states that the offence which is the subject matter of the present FIR, was committed by the Applicant while he was on bail in the FIR No. 105/2016 registered in Ahmedabad. 5.7. He states that the Applicant was granted interim bail thrice in this FIR and on all the three (3) occasions the Applicant has surrendered late on all the three (3) occasions. 5.8. He states that the Applicant herein is a resident of Gujarat and if enlarged on bail there are chances that Applicant might flee away and/or tamper with the evidence. 5.9. He has handed over a short note of the list of dates and events in support of the aforesaid submissions. Analysis and Findings 6. This Court has considered the submission of the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 7. Before adverting to the facts of the present case it would be apposite to refer to the factors which are to be taken into consideration for granting bail to an accused. 8. The Supreme Court in the case of Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee1, State of Uttar Pradesh v. Amarmani Tripathi2, and Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh3 has set out the conditions to be considered by Court while granting bail, which are summarized as under: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;