Delhi High Court
Dileep Kumar vs State on 2 December, 2015
Author: Suresh Kait
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 2nd December, 2015
+ BAIL APPLICATION No.2447/2015
DILEEP KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. Suhail Malik and Mr.Vikas
Malik, Advocates.
STATE ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.Amit Chadha, Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State
with SI Dharmender, P.S. Desh
Bandhu Gupta Road.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks directions thereby to
release him on bail in case bearing FIR No.235/2014 registered at Police
Station Desh Bandhu Gupta Raod, New Delhi, for the offences punishable
under Sections 394/395/397/412/120-B read with Section 34 IPC.
2. The petitioner disclosed that he knew accused Ashok Kumar, Tarun
Adhikari, Avtar Singh, Gurjeet Singh @ Kaka, Anil @ Annu, Ravinder @
Babloo, Harcharan and Satinder Pal @ Fraudi. He also disclosed that he
alongwith above mentioned accused persons planned to rob any jeweller,
who comes to Karol Bagh. Accordingly, on 13.05.2014, initially the
petitioner informed accused Ashok Kumar and Tarun Adhikari, who in
turn informed accused Harcharan, but Harcharan did not succeed. Hence,
on 14.05.2014, the petitioner again gave information qua the complainant
to Harcharan and they succeeded. However, before getting his share in
the booty, the petitioner was caught.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that
after robbing the jewellery items, the same were handed over to accused
Ashok Kumar and Tarun Adhikari for sale, however, there is no role of
the petitioner therein. Moreover, the petitioner has not received any booty
from the robbed items. He was only working with the jewellery shop and
at best case against the petitioner is that he used to give information to
other accused, however, he is not directly involved in the present case.
4. As per the case of the prosecution, on 14.05.2014 a PCR call vide
DD No.35-B regarding robbery near Liberty Cinema was received in the
aforenoted Police Station. On receipt of call, the officer concerned
reached at the spot, where complainant Satish Kumar Shah, who came
from Bombay met him. The complainant stated that he is a jeweller and
on 13.05.2014, he alongwith his friend Anand Rajpura reached Delhi by
train and called their known driver, namely, Naseem, who came with Tata
Indica Car bearing No.DL1YB-2702. Thereafter, they went to Chandni
Chowk and in the evening they returned to hotel Good Palace situated at
Karol Bagh, where they were staying. On 14.05.2014, they again called
the same driver with same car and went to Moti Nagar to show the
jewellery designs to jewellers of that area and thereafter returned to Hari
Sons Jewellers at Karol Bagh. Thereafter, they reached Pitampura and
also showed jewellery designs to jewellers of that area and thereafter
Shalimar Bagh to show their jewellery and when they were coming back
to their Hotel at Karol Bagh and reached near Liberty Cinema, suddenly
three young boys came on motorbike and overtaken their car and forcibly
stopped the same. Thereafter one of those boys came from left side where
his friend Anand Rajpura was sitting on back seat of car and after
breaking of rear glass by fist blow, he took his bag which contained
jewellery items of gold and diamond which was lying down near the feet
of Anand Rajpura.
5. Allegations against the petitioner herein are that he was working
with Madhav Bihari Jewellers and used to give information to Ashok
Kumar and Tarun Adhikari, who in turn pass the same to Avtar,
Harcharan, Gurjeet Singh, Satinder Pal, Anil Luthra and Ravinder. Thus,
they used to make plan to rob the persons, whosoever, come to Delhi for
showing the jewellery for business purposes.
6. During the interrogation, accused Ashok Kumar and Tarun
Adhikari disclosed that they both were working as goldsmiths and knew
the petitioner, who was working on a jewellery shop. They also knew the
aforenamed accused persons. Since their financial position was very
weak, therefore, they discussed their problem with abovenamed accused
and planned to rob any jeweller who come to Karol Bagh and that the
petitioner supposed to give information about the jewellers, who came
from outside. Accordingly, on 13.05.2014, accused Tarun Adhikari,
Ashok Kumar and the petitioner met in Karol Bagh and as planned
petitioner showed the complainant and his friend to Ashok Kumar and
Tarun Adhikari, who in turn informed accused Harcharan on his mobile.
Accordingly, Harcharan came to Karol Bagh and after showing again the
complainant and his friend to Harcharan, Ashok Kumar, Tarun Adhikari
and the petitioner returned back to their work.
7. Learned counsel further submits that out of 34 prosecution
witnesses only 18 witnesses have been examined, the petitioner is in
custody since 24.05.2014 and the trial will take substantial time, therefore,
the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
8. There are total 11 accused in this case. None of the accused is
released on bail except accused Deepak, who used to purchase the robbed
items from the accused persons involved in the case. The trial is at its fag
end. Moreover, the petitioner is also involved in other case bearing FIR
No.272/2014 registered at Police Station Maurya Enclave for the offences
punishable under Sections 395/120-B IPC.
9. Therefore, considering the role of the petitioner and the fact that the
petitioner is a habitual offender, I am not inclined to grant bail to the
petitioner.
10. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
11. A copy of this order be given dasti to the learned counsel for the
parties.
SURESH KAIT
(JUDGE)
DECMBER 02, 2015
sb
