Delhi High Court
Dhiraj Puri vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 11 September, 2020
$~11
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 11.09.2020
+ BAIL APPLN.1937/2020
DHIRAJ PURI ..... Petitioner
Versus
STATE .....Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. M.S.Bammi, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No.293/2018 Police Station
Patel Nagar under Sections 394/398/511/34 IPC.
3. FIR was registered on the statement given by the driver of a
private cash van, who contended that at about 11.30-11.45 am he had
taken the cash van from the office at Naraina Vihar along with other
employees for loading cash in the ATMs. Near Patel Nagar at about
1.15 PM the custodian, auditor and the gunman took the cash to load
in an ATM. While he was sitting in the vehicle with the gunman and
the windows of the vehicle were open and a cash box was also in the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:11.09.2020 19:30:08 BAIL APPLN.1937/2020 Page 1
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
vehicle, two boys came from the front side of the vehicle holding
something which resembled a weapon but their faces were muffled
with a handkerchief and one of the boys pointed a weapon like object
on him and the other pointed a weapon on the gunman. The gunman
left his gun in the vehicle and ran away. A third boy came from the
side and hit him on his head with some pointed object. He got out of
the vehicle and starting shouting and when he started shouting, public
accumulated and the boys ran away from there.
4. As per the case of the prosecution, the dump data was obtained
from the towers of various cell phones and the dump data was
analysed and five suspected mobile numbers having connectivity with
each other were identified. The location of all the mobile phones was
moving together and all of them were present at the scene of crime at
the time of the incident.
5. Based on the IMEI numbers a co accused was suspected since
he was previously involved in cases of robbery. He was arrested and
he is alleged to have disclosed the name of the petitioner along with
other co accused.
6. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, the allegation is that
petitioner had contacted the accused and was informing them about
the location of the vehicle from time to time.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
admitted case of the prosecution is that petitioner was not present on
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:11.09.2020 19:30:08 BAIL APPLN.1937/2020 Page 2
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
the scene of crime, however, with regard to the contention that
petitioner was informing about the location of the vehicle, learned
counsel submits that there is no material on record to substantiate the
same.
8. He submits that merely because a call connection is established
between two individuals does not establish as to what discussion had
taken place between them.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire case
against the petitioner is based on circumstantial evidence and there is
no direct evidence linking the petitioner with the subject offence. He
further submits that though petitioner is alleged to have committed an
offence under Section 398 IPC, however, there is no
material/evidence to establish that any dangerous weapon was used in
the offence.
10. Learned counsel further submits that the witnesses have merely
stated that a weapon like object was used. No description of any
weapon has been given by any of the witnesses, leave alone
describing a dangerous weapon.
11. Status report has been filed, however, as per the status report
the family of the petitioner is presently residing with his brother-in-
law and that also in a tenanted accommodation.
12. Without commenting on the merits of the case and keeping in
view the fact that petitioner has already undergone nearly 1 year of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:11.09.2020 19:30:08 BAIL APPLN.1937/2020 Page 3
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
incarceration, on petitioner furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.
25,000/- each with two local sureties of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the Trial Court, petitioner shall released on bail, if not
required in any other case. Petitioner shall not do anything which may
prejudice the trial or the prosecution witnesses.
13. Petition is allowed in the above terms.
14. Copy of the Order be uploaded on the High Court website and
be also forwarded to learned counsels through email.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
SEPTEMBER 11, 2020
rk
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:11.09.2020 19:30:08 BAIL APPLN.1937/2020 Page 4
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
