Sanjay @ Bhola vs State (Nct Of Delhi)
2016 Latest Caselaw 5129 Del

*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+   Bail Application No.1276/2016
                                    Date of Decision: 4th August, 2016

    SANJAY @ BHOLA                                    ..... Petitioner

                       Through:     Mr.Gurbaksh Singh & Mr.K.R.Dogra,
                                    Advs.
                       versus

    STATE (NCT OF DELHI)                              ..... Respondent

                       Through      Mr.Manjeet Arya, APP.

          CORAM:
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

    P.S.TEJI, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.130/2014 under

Sections 419/420/365/392/395/412/120B/34 IPC registered at Police

Station: Kamla Market, Delhi.

2. The case in the nutshell is that on 22.04.2014 a complaint was

recieved at police station Kamla Market from Sh.Rishi Chander Yadav

S/o Sh.Kanhaiya Lal to the effect that he works for Sh.Rajender

Kumar as a cargo carrier at Allahabad and used to travel from Delhi to

Allahabad several times in a month for supply and distribution of

parcels containing electronic items like mobile phones, chargers and

other electronic items suplied from Gaffar Market, GB Road, Sadar

Bazar, Lajpat Nagar and other different markets of Delhi. The

payments for the items were being sent from Allahabad through Bank

Account and some times through parcel. On 12.04.2014, a parcel

containing some defective electronic items which were to be returned

to the shopkeepers in Delhi and cash around 50 lakhs was booked

from Allahabad Railway Station in Prayag Raj Express for Delhi. On

13.04.2014, the train reached New Delhi Railway Stationat about 7.10

A.M. and the parcel was got released by the complainant and loaded

on a rickshaw being pulled by a person namely Mehto, knwon to the

complainant who usually plied his rickshaw at New Delhi Railway

Station. On the way at Pahar Ganj Fly Over, one person wearing

police uniform standing near a black car stopped the complainant and

enquired about the parcel after introducing himself as Crime Branch

official. In the meanwhile, another person came out from the car and

picked the parcel from rickshaw and put in into the dickey of the black

car and forced the complainant to sit in the car. In the meanwhile,

another Wagon R car also arrived there from behind. One person in

police uniform came out from the car and caught hold of the rickshaw

puller and tried to forcefully drag him into the car but could not

succeed. After that, both the cars fled away from there. In the car, they

confiscated mobile phone of the complainant saying that they are from

Crime Branch and taking him to the office of Crime Branch at

Chanakya Puri, Delhi. All through they were receiving instructions

from a person over the phone. They took the complainant to Suraj

Kund where they dropped him and while taking away the parcel,

threatened him not to disclose this to anyone. Thus, as per the

complainant, due to fear, he did not report the matter to police until

22.04.2014.

3. During the course of investigation, four accused persons namely

Surender Kumar Verma, Vasudev Prasad, Raj Bahadur @ Raju and

the petitioner were arrested. A total sum of Rs.16 lakhs cash and

household articles worth Rs.1.5 lakhs apart from vehicles used in the

commisison of crime being Corolla Car HR 51 R 9900 and Wagor R

DL 8C NB 8928 were receoved. Out of the total cash recovered, 5.25

laksh was recovered from Surender, Rs.1.45 lakhs was recovered from

Raj Bahadur @ Raju, Rs.2.80 lakhs was recovered from Vasudev and

Rs. 2.55 lakhs was recoved from the petitioner. Rs. 4 lakhs was

recoved at the instance of Yadvendar @ Guddu Yadav. During the

course of TIP, accused Raj Bahadur was correctly identified by the

complainant as the person who had come to the spot in his Wagon R.

On 10.03.2015, accused Sanjay Kariyar @ Bhola surrendered before

the Court and after interrogation was arrested. The accused Manish

has been declared a PO by the Court. The electronic items thrown in

the Agra Canal were recovered at the instance of the petitioner.

4. During the course of further investigation, it was revealed that

accused Manish, Guddu and the petitioner used to visit Vasudev who

had connection with the petitioner from Allahabad and was having

detailed information about the kind of transactions done by the

complainant. On 13.04.2014 after having specific information from

the petitioner about the parcel coming from Allahabad through Prayag

Raj Express, the accused persons executed their plan. During the

course of investigaiton, it was revealed that the looted parcel

contained Rs.43 lakh cash which was distributed equally between the

six accused and one lakh was kept for the petitoner who had given

information about the movement of money from Allahabad.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his case has

taken the grounds that there is no allegation against the petitioner that

he has snatched the parcel or currency notes or removed the notes or

any recovery was effected from him and the only allegation is that he

informed about the whereabouts of Mr.Rishi, the complainant, who

was to carry the said parcel to the co-accused who planned the robbery

and robbed the complainant; that the petitioner is being roped to

complete the chain of events; that the parcel containing notes is not

allowed to be carried in a train and thus, the question of robbery of

notes does not arise; that the petitioner has been implicated only on the

basis of presumptions; that the complainant in his testimony has no

where stated that the petitioner saw him when he carried the notes

from Allahabad to Delhi; that the petitioner has been implicated on the

basis of a call made by the petitioner to the accused Vasudev in the

usual course of business; that the petitioner had a business dealings

with Vasudev and was thus making calls to him and on the basis of a

call, he cannot be roped in the present case without any evidence on

record; that the prosecution has not placed on record any document

such as railway ticket or receipt qua deposit of parcel and release of

parcel, which could suggest that the parcel was booked by the

complainant and it was got released by him and he travelled from

Allahabad to New Delhi.

6. Per contra, the learned APP for the State has opposed the bail

application on the grounds that the petitioner is the master mind

behind commission of the offences in question and minus him the

offences would not have taken place; that recovery of electronic items

has been effected at the instance of the petitioner from the Agra canal;

that the bail application of the co-accused Raj Bahadur who has been

identified by the complainant in the TIP proceedings who had come to

the spot in a Wagon R, has been rejected by this court on 11.05.2016;

that out of 32 witnesses, 18 witnesses including the complainant have

been examined so far and the remaining witnesses are yet to be

examined; that if released on bail, in view of the gravity of offence,

the petitioner is likely to threaten the witnesses and tamper with the

evidence.

7. From the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court

observes that the petitioner was one of the main conspirators who

hatched the criminal conspiracy to commit the robbery of money and

other articles. It is specifically alleged against him that he passed the

information about the movement of parcel containing money which

was robbed by the co-accused persons. There is strong apprehension

that if the petitioner is released on bail, he may tamper with the

evidence as he was the master mind of the alleged conspiracy. The

contentions raised by the petitioner are matter of trial and no comment

on the same can be made at this stage. Even otherwise, it is alleged

that recovery of electronic items was effected at the instance of the

petitioner. The evidence till date recorded cannot be read in piecemeal

and the same can be ascertained only at the time of the judgment by

the Trial Court.

8. In view of the gravity of offence and specific role attributed to

the petitioner, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

9. Before parting with the order, this court would like to place it

on record by way of abundant caution that whatever has been stated

hereinabove in this order has been so said only for the purpose of

disposing of the prayer for bail made by the petitioner. Nothing

contained in this order shall be construed as expression of a final

opinion on any of the issues of fact or law arising for decision in the

case which shall naturally have to be done by the Trial Court seized of

the trial.

10. The present bail application is accordingly dismissed.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE AUGUST 04, 2016 dm