Delhi High Court
Krishma Rajput @ Priya Thakur vs State on 18 December, 2019
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on 18.12.2019
+ BAIL APPLN. 2823/2019 & Crl.M.A. 40027/2019
KRISHMA RAJPUT @ PRIYA THAKUR
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.B.S.Billowria, Advocate.
versus
STATE (NCT of Delhi) ..... Respondent
Through Mr. G.M.Farooqui,
APP for State.
SI Kuldeep-Crime Branch,
Chanakya Puri.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRIJESH SETHI
JUDGMENT
BRIJESH SETHI, J.(Oral)
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of a bail application filed u/s.
439 CrPC by the petitioner Krishma Rajpurt @ Priya Thakur in
FIR No. 148/2017, u/s. 365/397/412/420/467/468/471/201/506/120-B
IPC & 25/27/29 Arms Act, P.S. Crime Branch East Delhi.
2. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for bail on the ground
that petitioner is innocent and falsely implicated. She is aged about 32
years and is single parent having one minor son and old aged mother.
It is submitted that till 16.10.2019, even the cross examination of
complainant has not been completed and there are 35 witnesses and 7
under trial persons and it will take long time to conclude the trial.
Petitioner is in JC since 27.09.2017. Nothing incriminating has been
recovered either from her possession or at her instance and allegations
against her are false and baseless and therefore, it is prayed that
petitioner be released on bail.
3. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, in support of its submissions, has
relied on following case law:-
a. R.D.Upadhyay v. State of A.P. 7 Ors. (1996) 3 SCC 422;
b. Payal v. state, Bail Appl. No. 2401/2019 of High Court of
Delhi; Ajay Verma v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, W.P.(C)
10689/2017 of High Court of Delhi;
c. Kirti @ Pooja v. State, Bail Appl. No. 2435/2019 of High Court
of Delhi.
4. I have gone through the above case law. There is no quarrel
with the proposition of law laid down therein. However, the facts and
circumstances in the case are clearly distinguishable from the
authorities cited by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner.
5. Ld. APP for the state has opposed the bail application on the
ground that allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature.
Petitioner along with her associate has abducted the complainant on
gun point and robbed him of his Rs. 36 lacs. He has, therefore, prayed
for dismissal of the bail application.
6. I have considered the rival submissions. As per prosecution
the complainant Hitesh deals in Bit Coin trade and sells/purchases
Bit Coins. On 07.04.2017, he along with his friend Anand had
gone for a deal at V3S Mall, near Nirman Vihar Metro Station on
the call of one lady Krishma Rajput (petitioner herein). They
reached there but petitioner along with her associates abducted both
of them at gun point and took them to a flat at Vaishali, Ghaziabad,
U.P. and robbed him of Rs. 36 lacs. During investigation, four
accused persons namely Karamvir Singh, Devendra Chauhan,
Sandeep Chauhan @ Sandy and Kunal Sharma were arrested and at
their instance recoveries were made. According to prosecution, the
accused persons used to cheat the targets on the basis of fake voter
ID Card and Permanent Account Number (PAN). The offence
committed by the petitioner along with her associates is serious in
nature. The call detail records confirm location of the petitioner.
The record, Prima facie, reveals that petitioner has played an active
role in the commission of the alleged offence. She has refused to
participate in the TIP before the Ld. Link M.M. Further, keeping
in mind the fact that the material witness i.e. complainant Hitesh
Shukla and his friend Vishal Chandna are yet to be examined and
also in view of seriousness and gravity of the offence, no grounds
for bail are made out. The bail application along with pending
application is, therefore, dismissed and stands disposed of
accordingly.
BRIJESH SETHI, J
DECEMBER 18, 2019
(AK)
