Delhi High Court
Sifarish Khan vs The State (Govt Of Nct on 25 March, 2025
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 25.03.2025
+ BAIL APPLN. 140/2025 & CRL.M.A. 907/2025
SIFARISH KHAN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Bibek Tripathi and Mr. Ajay Kr.
Shrivastav, Advocates
versus
THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT) .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Richa Dhawan, APP with SI
Rajender, P.S. Kotla Mubarakpur
CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The petitioner seeks to be released on bail in case FIR No. 346/2024
of P.S. Kotla Mubarakpur for offences under Sections 319(2)/318(4)/61(2)
of BNS.
2. Broadly speaking, prosecution case is as follows. On 05.10.2024, a
complaint was lodged before the local police by one Shri Ravinder Sharma,
alleging that on suggestion of his friend Sanjay to the effect that from Nepal,
gold at rates 30% cheaper can be purchased, in order to do so on 03.10.2024
accompanied with his nephew Aman, carrying cash Rs.11,00,000/- he went
to South Extension Metro Station Gate No. 3, where on directions of Sanjay,
he met one Deepak, who led them to office in J-Block South Extension Part
I. There he handed over Rs. 11,00,000/- to Deepak and the latter handed
BAIL APPLN. 140/2025 Page 1 of 3 pages
over gold in a bag, offering to deliver the bag in the car of the complainant.
Thereafter, complainant, Deepak and Aman started walking towards the car.
In the meanwhile, on a Pulsar motorbike two persons came, who were
wearing police shoes and khaki pants and one of them who was carrying a
"pistol-like instrument" snatched the gold bag and asked them about the
same. Seeing this, Deepak and Aman fled away and the persons on
motorbike started following them. Subsequently, those motorcycle-borne
snatchers fled away. The incident occurred on 03.10.2024 at 01:00 AM but
the complainant lodged his complaint on 05.10.2024.
3. The allegation against the present petitioner is that the Pulsar
motorbike on which the alleged snatchers came was owned by the petitioner.
In this regard, the only evidence is a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C of
one Vijay Kumar, son of the registered owner of the bike, who stated that
some time in the year 2019, his father had sold away that bike to the present
petitioner but neither he had any document of sale nor did he remember date
or month of the alleged sale. Father of Shri Vijay Kumar is alive as per the
IO but was not examined because according to IO, the said person (who is
registered owner of the bike) is an old man.
4. Apart from that, the evidence connecting the petitioner with the
alleged offence is Call Details Record (CDRs) as per which there were
phone calls exchanged between the present petitioner and co-accused
Akhileshwar and Badshah Khan @ Deepak. But the shocking part is that
despite spending about 15 minutes on the investigation file, the IO/SI
BAIL APPLN. 140/2025 Page 2 of 3 pages
Rajender could not find out any document of ownership of the telephones,
which are reflected in the CDRs, alleged to be of the petitioner and co-
accused persons.
5. No other evidence connecting the present petitioner with the alleged
offence has been collected in investigation. And despite this, the petitioner is
suffering incarceration since 15.11.2024.
6. Under these circumstances, the bail application is allowed and
petitioner is released on bail subject to his furnishing personal bond in the
sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of
the Trial Court. A copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the
concerned Jail Superintendent for informing the petitioner. Pending
application also stand disposed of.
GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
MARCH 25, 2025/rk
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
BAIL APPLN. 140/2025 Page 3 of 3 pages
