[ad_1]
Delhi High Court
Ram Dhar Singh vs State Nct Of Delhi on 24 April, 2025
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 24.04.2025
+ BAIL APPLN. 2881/2024
RAM DHAR SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pradeep Rana, Mr.
Abhishek Rana and Mr. Ankit
Rana, Advs.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Raghuinder Verma, APP
for State with Inspector Manoj
Dahiya, PS Crime Branch.
Mr. Faraz Maqbool and Mr. A.
Sahitya Verma, Advs. for
Complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
SHALINDER KAUR, J. (ORAL)
1. By way of the present petition filed under section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (‘BNSS’) read with section
528 of BNSS, the petitioner seeks Regular Bail in FIR No. 290/2019
dated26.12.2019 registered under Section 365 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860(‘IPC‘) at Police Station Hazarat Nizamuddin, Delhi. Upon
the completion of investigation, offences under Sections
302,392,411,201,120B and 34 of the IPC have been added.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
BAIL APPLN. 2881/2024 Page 1 of 9
Signing Date:24.04.2025
19:32:01
2. As per the prosecution, the present case arises out of a
complaint lodged by Shri Vipin Kumar Tiwari (son of the deceased).
The complainant stated that his father, Shri Kripa Shankar Tiwari,
who was employed as a driver for a commercial OLA vehicle bearing
registration number UP16DT-8670, had left home at approximately
04:00 P.M. on 02.12.2019. According to the complainant, the last
telephonic contact with Shri Kripa Shankar occurred around 10:15
P.M. the same evening, subsequent to which there was no further
communication.
3. The local police conducted initial inquiries and took steps to
trace the missing person. However, as the investigation did not yield
immediate results, and the matter remained unresolved, this Court, in
Writ Petition (Crl) No. 137/2020, vide an Order dated 27.02.2020
transferred the investigation to the Anti Human Trafficking Unit
(AHTU), Crime Branch, Delhi.
4. During the course of investigation by the AHTU, it was found
that the mobile phone belonging to the missing person had remained
active and was last traced to Narwar, in District Shivpuri, Madhya
Pradesh. Acting on this information, a police team visited the said
location and, on 21.07.2020, apprehended one Rajender Majhi,
resident of Batham Mohalla, Narwar. Upon his search, a mobile phone
identified as that of the missing person was recovered from his
possession.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
BAIL APPLN. 2881/2024 Page 2 of 9
Signing Date:24.04.2025
19:32:01
5. On being questioned, Rajender Majhi is stated to have informed
the investigating officers that the said mobile phone had been given to
him about 7-8 months earlier by a person named Ashfak, a resident of
the same locality. He further stated that he had been using the mobile
phone with his own SIM cards thereafter.
6. Information received from Police Station Satanwada, Madhya
Pradesh, indicated that Ashfak Beg, son of Ashraf Khan, resident of
Khateek Mohalla, Narwar, had been Judicial Custody since
06.06.2020 and was lodged at the Shivpuri Jail in connection with FIR
No. 63/2020 under Sections 79 and 392 of the IPC, Section 11 and 13
of the Madhya Pradesh Dasyu Prabhavit Kshetra Act and Section 25
and 27 the Arms Act.
7. On issuance of production warrants from the concerned court,
Ashfak was produced before the Duty Magistrate at Tihar Jail
Complex, New Delhi on 04.09.2020. He was subsequently
interrogated and the during the interrogation, Ashfak disclosed that
approximately nine months prior, he had conspired with the Ramdhar
(the petitioner herein) to hire a commercial vehicle with the alleged
intention of committing robbery, citing financial constraints as the
motivation.
8. The co-accused Ashfak revealed that on 02.12.2019, at around
9/10 P.M, he and the petitioner reached Sarai Kale Khan Railway
Station and hired a white Tata Indigo vehicle for an agreed fare of
₹3,000 to travel to Mathura. The vehicle was reportedly chosen as it
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
BAIL APPLN. 2881/2024 Page 3 of 9
Signing Date:24.04.2025
19:32:01
was being driven by a person who, in their assessment, was aged
around 50-52 years, since it was easy to overpower such a person. It is
alleged that after crossing Jevar toll plaza, the driver was asked to halt
the vehicle on the pretext of the passengers requiring to relieve
themselves.
9. At this juncture, the petitioner, who was seated in the rear seat,
proceeded to strangulate the driver using his belt, while the co-accused
Ashfak simultaneously pressed the driver’s mouth. As the belt
reportedly broke during the attempt, the co-accused Ashfak is stated to
have then used a saafi (muffler) to complete the act of strangulation.
10. The driver’s purse and mobile phone were then taken by the
accused and the body of the driver was placed in the rear leg space of
the vehicle, following which the co-accused Ashfak is stated to have
taken control of the car, with the petitioner seated in the front. The
belt, which was used for strangulation, was discarded by throwing it
out of the moving vehicle.
11. Both the accused then travelled in the said vehicle to Agra, and
thereafter to a sarson (mustard) field approximately 200 metres from
the main road, where the deceased’s body was disposed of along a
kachcha path. Subsequently, the car was taken to the petitioners’
residence located at Village Morar, District Gwalior.
12. Two days later, the co-accused Ashfak took the vehicle to
Narwar, Shivpuri, Madhya Pradesh, where he handed over the mobile
phone of the deceased to one Rajendra Majhi, a resident of the said
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
BAIL APPLN. 2881/2024 Page 4 of 9
Signing Date:24.04.2025
19:32:01
area. During the course of the investigation, the co-accused Ashfak
also pointed out the location in Sarai Kale Khan, New Delhi, from
where the car had been hired from the deceased. He further disclosed
the location of the CNG pump where the car was refuelled, and
allegedly identified the location where the murder was committed.
13. On 06.09.2020, the petitioner in the present case was arrested.
During the interrogation, he disclosed his involvement in the murder
and identified locations relevant to the commission of the offence,
including where the vehicle was hired, where the murder took place,
and where the body was subsequently disposed of. He also indicated
his ability to assist in the recovery of the vehicle documents. Both
accused persons are stated to have jointly led the investigating team to
the location where the body had been dumped, which was found to be
an open field.
14. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no
incriminating material placed on record by the prosecution against the
petitioner except certain documents that were recovered from the
house of the petitioner, 9 months after the incident in question.
Further, as per the CDR, the location of the petitioner at the time of
the offence was never in Delhi.
15. The learned counsel submitted that in the present case, there are
no eyewitnesses; however, there are 43 witnesses. He submitted that
the petitioner has been incarcerated for 4 and a half years, however, in
such period, the testimony of only one witness has been completed. In
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
BAIL APPLN. 2881/2024 Page 5 of 9
Signing Date:24.04.2025
19:32:01
such circumstance, he submitted that the trial would take a
considerable time to conclude and therefore the petitioner be released
on bail.
16. Per contra, the learned APP for the state, while opposing the
bail application, submitted that the case is at the stage of prosecution
evidence and there remain multiple witnesses that are yet to be
examined. He submitted that if the petitioner is released on bail, there
is a likelihood that he may influence or tamper with the witnesses. In
addition to this, he submitted that the nature of offences alleged
against the petitioner are serious in nature and there exits the
possibility of him jumping bail.
17. Rebutting the submission made regarding the CDR location, the
learned APP as well as the learned counsel for the complainant
submitted that the phone of the petitioner was switched off and that is
why the CDR location did not reflect that he was in Delhi.
Furthermore, they submitted that the petitioner has not disclosed a
pending FIR in Madhya Pradesh.
18. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and examined
the record, it may be noted that the case of the prosecution rests on
circumstantial evidence.
19. As per the prosecution, the petitioner, along with the co-accused
Ashfak, had strangulated the deceased with the motive to steal his
vehicle. However, the vehicle has not been recovered and the
petitioner was arrested on the basis of the disclosure statement of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
BAIL APPLN. 2881/2024 Page 6 of 9
Signing Date:24.04.2025
19:32:01
co-accused. Subsequent thereto, certain documents belonging to the
deceased were recovered from the house of the petitioner, which is
after about 9 months of the incident.
20. The learned counsel for the petitioner claims that the petitioner
was falsely implicated in the case and submits that at the time of the
incident, he was in Rajasthan and the next day, he had gone to
Madhya Pradesh. This makes it clear that he was not in Delhi at the
time of commission of the offence, which fact can be verified from his
CDR.
21. Rebutting the said submission, the learned APP and the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the son of the deceased submit that the
location of the petitioner could not be shown in Delhi as he cleverly
switched of his mobile. Nonetheless, the said fact is a question to be
proved at trial.
22. Admittedly, the petitioner has been in custody since his date of
arrest, that is 06.09.2020, and it would take a substantial amount of
time for the trial to conclude as out of the 43 witnesses cited by the
prosecution, till date, only one witness has been examined.
23. As per his Nominal Roll, the petitioner has never been admitted
to Interim Bail and his overall jail conduct has been ‘satisfactory’.
24. In totality of the circumstances, the petitioner is admitted to
regular bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/-
with two surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned Trial
Court / CMM / Duty Magistrate, subject to the following conditions: –
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
BAIL APPLN. 2881/2024 Page 7 of 9
Signing Date:24.04.2025
19:32:01
i. The Petitioner shall not leave the State of NCT of
Delhi without prior permission of the learned Trial
Court.
ii. The Petitioner is directed to give all his mobile
numbers to the Investigating Officer and keep it
operational at all times.
iii. The Petitioner shall not contact, nor visit, nor offer
any inducement, threat or promise to any of the
prosecution witnesses or other person acquainted
with the facts of case. The Petitioner shall not
tamper with evidence nor otherwise indulge in any
act or omission that is unlawful or that would
prejudice the proceedings in the pending trial.
iv. The Petitioner shall report at the Police Station
Hazarat Nizamuddin, Delhi on every Wednesday
and Saturday between 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM. The
concerned officer shall release the Petitioner after
recording his presence and after completion of all
the necessary formalities.
v. The Petitioner shall intimate the learned Trial Court
by way of an affidavit and to the Investigating
Officer regarding any change of residential address.
vi. The Petitioner shall appear before the learned Trial
Court as and when the matter is taken up for hearing.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
BAIL APPLN. 2881/2024 Page 8 of 9
Signing Date:24.04.2025
19:32:01
25. Needless to state, any observation made hereinabove shall not
tantamount to be an expression on the merits of the case before the
learned Trial Court and has been made for the consideration of the
present bail application alone in the prevailing circumstances.
26. Copy of the Order be sent to the Jail Superintendent concerned
for information and necessary compliance.
27. Accordingly, the petition, along with the pending application, is
disposed of.
SHALINDER KAUR, J
APRIL 24, 2025/FRK
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
BAIL APPLN. 2881/2024 Page 9 of 9
Signing Date:24.04.2025
19:32:01
[ad_2]
Source link