Salman vs The State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) on 21 January, 2025

Delhi High Court

Salman vs The State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) on 21 January, 2025

Author: Neena Bansal Krishna

Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna

                           $~1
                           *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                           %                                      Date of decision:21st January, 2025
                           +                         BAIL APPLN. 4666/2024
                                  SALMAN                                                    .....Petitioner
                                                Through: Mr. R.P.S. Bhatti, Advocate.
                                                versus
                                  THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)             .....Respondent
                                                Through: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for
                                                         State.
                                                         S.I. Kavish Rana, PS Laxmi Nagar,
                                                         Delhi.
                                  CORAM:
                                  HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
                                                        J U D G M E N T (oral)

1. The present Bail Petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C., 1973″)/Section 483 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as
“BNSS, 2023”) read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973/Section 528 of
BNSS, 2023 has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner seeking Regular Bail
in FIR No. 236/2023 under Sections 395/397/342/411/120B/216A/34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC, 1860″) and
Sections 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station Laxmi
Nagar, Delhi.

2. It is submitted in the Petition that the Petitioner had applied for Bail
which has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide
Order dated 23.11.2024.

3. The grounds on which the Bail has been sought, are that the case of

Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 4666/2024 Page 1 of 4
DigitallySigned By:SAHIL
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.01.2025
09:15:22
the prosecution is based against the Petitioner on the basis of disclosure
statements of the other co-accused. Admittedly, the Petitioner was not
present on the scene of crime. The recovery has been planted on him. The
Chargesheet has already been filed before the learned Trial Court.

4. It is submitted that the Petitioner is in jail for the last one and a half
year and the trial is likely to take long.

5. Therefore, the prayer is made that the Petitioner may be granted
Regular Bail in the present FIR.

6. The Status Report has been filed on behalf of the State, wherein it is
submitted that the information regarding “house theft” was received vide
DD No. 70A dated 24.05.2023 at the Police Station Laxmi Nagar, Delhi.
Pursuant thereto, the Investigating Officer/S.I. Vivek along with Constable
Rawal went to the spot where they met Complainant Radhika, on whose
statement the FIR under Sections 380/454 of IPC, 1860 was registered.

7. Thereafter, the Supplementary Statement of Complainant Radhika
was recorded and offences under Sections 392/397/342/34 of IPC, 1860
were substituted.

8. It is submitted that during the investigations, it was found that Pawan
who was known to the Complainant Radhika’s family, along with four other
co-accused persons, was involved in the house robbery and was seen
guiding the accused to the place of incident after doing rekki, as is visible in
the CCTV footage analysis.

9. On 02.06.2023, at the instance of Pawan, co-accused Arman Rathore
@ Sunny was arrested from Khanna, Punjab of whom Pawan was a tenant 2-
3 years back.

10. Arman Rathore @ Sunny, who was an old friend of the accused

Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 4666/2024 Page 2 of 4
DigitallySigned By:SAHIL
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.01.2025
09:15:22
Salman as five years back, they both used to drive the cab together in Delhi,
led to his arrest from his Flat Sunder Ka Makaan, Naya Bans Village, Lane
No. 2, Sector-15, Noida, Uttar Pradesh.

11. It is submitted that the recovery of some stolen cash and gold items
was made from all the accused persons.

12. The role of the Petitioner is that he was involved in the conspiracy of
robbery. He sheltered/harboured all the four co-accused at his flat for
hatching the conspiracy to commit robbery. After the commission of the
offence of robbery, cash amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- and gold jewellery
were recovered from his flat which he disclosed had been given to him by
accused Arman Rathore @ Sunny from the looted articles, for helping in
harbouring them.

13. After completion of investigations, the Chargesheet has been filed and
the Charges had been framed against the accused persons vide Order dated
02.12.2024 and the case is at the stage of Prosecution Evidence.

14. In the end, it is submitted that the Petitioner has committed the
offence in a daring manner. The offence committed is of serious nature and
there is a possibility of the Petitioner jumping the Bail to avoid punishment.
If the Bail is granted to the Petitioner, he can commit the same offence and
threaten the Complainant, Radhika.

15. Submissions heard and the record perused.

16. As per the prosecution case, the role of the accused defined is that
prior to the commission of the offence, a meeting to hatch the conspiracy of
dacoity was held in the house of the accused, Salman. He admittedly was not
on the scene of crime on the date of incident. However, he was found to be
in constant touch with the co-accused, as established by the CDR Call

Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 4666/2024 Page 3 of 4
DigitallySigned By:SAHIL
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.01.2025
09:15:22
Details. Furthermore, subsequently recovery of Rs.1,50,000/- and part of the
stolen jewellery, was made from his possession.

17. The Charges have been framed against him under Section 120B read
with Section 365 of IPC, 1860 and also for harbouring the co-accused
punishable under Section 216A of IPC, 1860 and under Section 412 of IPC,
1860 for retaining/receiving stolen property in dacoity. The Charges have
already been framed against the Petitioner and other co-accused vide Order
dated 02.12.024.

18. There are serious charges of conspiracy to commit dacoity, and that
he throughout had remained in contact with them as established by the CDR
Call Details. The complexity in the crime is further corroborated by the
recovery of the part of the goods stolen in the dacoity. At this stage,
considering the gravity of the offence and that the Prosecution Witnesses are
yet to be examined, it is not a fit case for grant of Bail.

19. The Bail Application is hereby dismissed and disposed of
accordingly.

(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
JANUARY 21, 2025
S.Sharma/RS

Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 4666/2024 Page 4 of 4
DigitallySigned By:SAHIL
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.01.2025
09:15:22