Delhi High Court – Orders
Rakesh Kumar vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi on 5 March, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 326/2025
RAKESH KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Bijendra Kumar Pathak,
Advocate.
versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP.
SI Pramod Kumar, ARSC, Crime
Branch.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 05.03.2025
1. The present application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023,1 (formerly Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973)2 seeks regular bail in proceedings arising from
FIR No. 0087/2024 registered under Section 356/379/34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 18603 at P.S. Chitranjan Park. Subsequently, a chargesheet was filed
and charges under Sections 379/356/401/411/413/414/34 of IPC were added.
2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:
2.1. The present case was registered based on a complaint of Sh. Debaratta
Sinha, who reported that on 4th April 2024, while he was riding his scooty
with his wife and daughter to drop his child at school, two individuals on a1
“BNSS”
2
“Cr.P.C.”
3
“IPC”
BAIL APPLN. 326/2025 Page 1 of 8
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/03/2025 at 21:26:45
motorcycle snatched his gold chain near Setup Gym, C.R. Park, Delhi.
2.2. During the investigation, one of the suspects, Taufik, was
apprehended. Upon interrogation, he disclosed that he and his accomplice,
Nazakat, were responsible for the chain-snatching incident. Subsequently,
permission was obtained from the Trial Court to interrogate the co-accused,
Nazakat @ KTM, who was already in judicial custody in Case FIR No.
212/24 at PS Sector-49, Noida, Uttar Pradesh.
2.3. During questioning, Nazakat @ KTM admitted to committing the
crime with Taufik. He further revealed that the chain broke into two pieces
during the snatching, and both he and Taufik kept one piece each. According
to his disclosure, he later handed over his share of the stolen gold chain to
his wife, Neha.
2.4. As the investigation progressed, it became evident that the case
extended beyond a mere chain-snatching incident. It was uncovered as part
of a broader criminal operation orchestrated by Nazakat @ KTM, a
notorious gang operating across Delhi-NCR, specializing in robbery and
theft. The gang had a structured network, with members assigned specific
roles, such as procuring stolen motorcycles, altering number plates, and
selling stolen or snatched gold chains and mobile phones. In light of these
revelations, additional charges under Sections 401, 413, and 414 of the IPC
were invoked. The Applicant, Rakesh Kumar, was identified as an active
participant in the network, primarily engaged in disposing of stolen and
snatched valuables.
2.5. Notices under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. were duly served upon the
Applicant, directing him to join the investigation. However, instead of
complying, he sought anticipatory bail from the Sessions Court, which was
BAIL APPLN. 326/2025 Page 2 of 8
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/03/2025 at 21:26:45
rejected. He then approached this Court for anticipatory bail, which was also
denied.
2.6. On 26th July, 2024, the Applicant surrendered before the Trial Court
and was subsequently arrested. The police obtained a three-day custodial
remand, during which a recovery of gold, found in molten form, was made
from his shop.
2.7. During interrogation, it emerged that the Applicant’s son, Sanchit
Agarwal, was also involved in illicit activities, assisting his father in
procuring snatched, stolen, and robbed gold chains, which were then melted
and sold as raw material. This involvement was further corroborated by the
disclosure statement of co-accused Praveen Mohammad.
2.8. Financial transactions between the Applicant’s son, Sanchit Agarwal,
and accused Neha (wife of the main accused, Nazakat @ KTM) were also
uncovered. Additionally, call records revealed frequent telephonic
communication between the Applicant and co-accused Praveen Mohammad,
as well as other family members of Nazakat @ KTM, further strengthening
the case against him.
2.9. The main chargesheet, along with a supplementary chargesheet, has
already been filed before the concerned court on 6th August, 2024, and 19th
October, 2024, respectively.
3. Counsel for the Applicant presses for bail on the following grounds:
3.1 The Applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He was
not named in the FIR and was only arrayed as an accused at the chargesheet
stage, solely on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused Nazakat
@ KTM. The prosecution alleges that Nazakat disclosed that he regularly
procured snatched gold chains and resold them through various jewelleryBAIL APPLN. 326/2025 Page 3 of 8
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/03/2025 at 21:26:45
shops, including the establishment, ‘Laxmi Jewellers’, owned by the
Applicant. However, the Applicant has no knowledge of the events forming
the basis of the FIR, and the allegations against him are baseless and
fabricated.
3.2 A search was conducted at the Applicant’s jewellery shop, during
which 2.55 grams of gold in molten form were recovered. However, the
Investigating Officer failed to conduct test identification proceedings to
establish whether the recovered gold was connected to the present case or if
it was part of the Applicant’s legitimate business. The Applicant maintains
that the recovered gold was lawfully purchased from a customer, Shri
Ashwani, against a proper bill dated 14th May, 2024, which was provided to
the IO but was disregarded during the investigation.
3.3 The Applicant has a clean record and has been in judicial custody
since 26th July, 2024. The primary investigation is complete, and both the
main and supplementary chargesheets have been filed. Since no further
custodial interrogation is required, his continued incarceration serves no
meaningful purpose.
3.4 Other accused persons, including Amit Kumar, Neha (wife of the
main accused, Nazakat @ KTM), and Parveen Mohammad (mother of
Nazakat), have already been granted bail. Given that the allegations against
them are of a similar nature, the Applicant is entitled to bail on grounds of
parity.
4. Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP for the State, opposes the
application on the following grounds:
4.1. The allegations against the Applicant are grave. The case involves an
organized criminal network engaged in systematic snatching and robbery,BAIL APPLN. 326/2025 Page 4 of 8
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/03/2025 at 21:26:46
which disrupts public order and spreads fear among citizens.
4.2. The operation of such criminal syndicates instils a sense of insecurity in
the public, and their activities must be curbed with a firm hand to maintain
law and order.
4.3. The investigation has revealed financial transactions between the
Applicant’s son, Sanchit Agarwal, and other accused persons, including
Neha (wife of Nazakat), which raises serious suspicions regarding the
Applicant’s role in the disposal of stolen goods.
4.4. Apart from the co-accused’s disclosure, the recovery of case property
and other material evidence substantiate the Applicant’s involvement in
facilitating the laundering of stolen gold.
4.5 Despite receiving a notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C., the
Applicant deliberately chose not to join the investigation and instead
attempted to evade law enforcement. This conduct indicates a likelihood of
him absconding or evading trial if released on bail.
4.6 The Applicant, being a jeweller, plays a crucial role in the criminal
chain by purchasing stolen gold and jewellery from offenders who resort to
violent means to commit theft. By providing an easy avenue to dispose of
stolen property, he effectively enables and sustains these criminal
enterprises while reaping financial benefits at the expense of law and order.
4.7 The Applicant’s involvement in a well-established network of stolen
goods trade suggests that he may continue engaging in similar offenses if
granted bail, posing a continuing threat to public safety.
5. The Court has considered the facts and the submissions advanced. It is
well established through catena of judgments by the Supreme Court that the
object of granting bail is neither punitive nor preventative. The primary aim
BAIL APPLN. 326/2025 Page 5 of 8
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/03/2025 at 21:26:46
sought to be achieved by bail is to secure the attendance of the accused
person at the trial.4
6. The investigation is complete, and both the chargesheet and
supplementary chargesheet have been filed. The Applicant has been in
judicial custody since 26th July, 2024. As per the nominal roll, as on 27th
February, 2025, the Applicant has been in judicial custody for 7 months and
2 days. The overall jail conduct of the Applicant has been stated to be
satisfactory.
7. The alleged role of the Applicant primarily pertains to the disposal of
stolen property, rather than direct involvement in the underlying offences of
snatching or robbery. Furthermore, while the State has raised concerns
regarding the Applicant’s alleged financial transactions and telephonic
communications with other accused persons, these aspects are matters of
trial and do not justify prolonged pre-trial incarceration, particularly when
other similarly placed co-accused have been granted bail.
8. The Court also takes note of the State’s apprehension that the
Applicant, if released, may engage in similar activities or evade trial.
However, the Applicant is a permanent resident, has no prior criminal
antecedents, and has surrendered before the Trial Court, demonstrating his
willingness to cooperate with the proceedings. Any concerns regarding
flight risk can be addressed by imposing appropriate conditions to ensure
that the Applicant remains available for trial and does not interfere with the
investigation or witnesses.
9. In view of the above and considering the settled principles governing
4
See also: Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40; Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of
Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51.
BAIL APPLN. 326/2025 Page 6 of 8
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/03/2025 at 21:26:46
the grant of bail, the Court finds that the continued incarceration of the
Applicant is not warranted. Accordingly, the Applicant is entitled to be
released on bail, subject to strict conditions to mitigate the concerns raised
by the prosecution.
10. Accordingly, it is directed that the Applicant be released on bail on
furnishing a personal bond for a sum of ₹50,000/- with two sureties of the
like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty MM, on the
following conditions:
a. The Applicant shall cooperate in any further investigation as and
when directed by the concerned IO;
b. The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or
tamper with the evidence of the case, in any manner whatsoever;
c. The Applicant shall under no circumstance leave the country without
the permission of the Trial Court;
d. The Applicant shall appear before the Trial Court as and when
directed;
e. The Applicant shall provide the address where he would be residing
after his release and shall not change the address without informing the
concerned IO/ SHO;
f. The Applicant shall, upon his release, give his mobile number to the
concerned IO/SHO and shall keep his mobile phone switched on at all times.
g. The Applicant shall report to the concerned PS on first Friday of
every month at 11 AM and shall not be kept waiting for more than an hour.
BAIL APPLN. 326/2025 Page 7 of 8
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/03/2025 at 21:26:46
11. In the event of there being any FIR/DD entry / complaint lodged
against the Applicant, it would be open to the State to seek redressal by
filing an application seeking cancellation of bail.
12. It is clarified that any observations made in the present order are for
the purpose of deciding the present bail application and should not influence
the outcome of the trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on
the merits of the case.
13. The bail application is allowed in the afore-mentioned terms.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
MARCH 5, 2025
d.negi
BAIL APPLN. 326/2025 Page 8 of 8
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/03/2025 at 21:26:46