Bhagwan Singh vs. State Of (Gnct) Of Delhi

Held

The Court decided to grant regular bail to the applicant. The Court noted that the applicant was not among the accused alleged to have committed the actual robbery. The worst case against the applicant was his alleged involvement in arranging the sale of the robbed gold and receiving a commission. The Court stated that whether the applicant was aware the gold was robbed is a matter for trial, and receiving money for arranging the sale does not, in itself, prove knowledge of the robbery. The Court also considered that the applicant had been in judicial custody for over two months, his jail conduct was satisfactory, and several co-accused, including the alleged ultimate purchaser of the gold, had already been granted bail. The Court granted bail subject to furnishing a personal bond, a local surety, providing an active contact number, and refraining from tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

Facts

The applicant, Bhagwan Singh, sought regular bail in connection with FIR No. 104/2020, registered on August 1, 2020, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act. The FIR alleged a robbery of gold bars and cash by unknown miscreants masquerading as police officials. The applicant was not named in the FIR, and the complainant stated he could recognize the perpetrators if confronted. The applicant's counsel argued that the FIR was delayed, no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted, and the applicant, a resident of Rajasthan, was not in Delhi on the date of the alleged offense. The prosecution alleged the applicant played a pivotal role in disposing of 2 kg of robbed gold, receiving Rs. 11,00,000/- as his share, which he produced and was seized. The investigation was reported as complete, with a charge-sheet pending filing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail given his alleged role in facilitating the sale of robbed gold, the absence of his direct involvement in the robbery, and the fact that co-accused have been granted bail? Petitioner's Arguments: - The applicant is not named in the FIR and was not present in Delhi on the date of the alleged offense. - No TIP has been conducted. - The FIR was registered with unexplained delay. - The applicant was implicated only for allegedly being involved in the sale of the robbed gold. - The prosecution's own case indicates the robbed gold was sold with a GST-paid invoice, and there's no evidence the applicant knew the gold was robbed. - Co-accused Amit Kumar Soni, Hanuman Bansal, and Dalip Khandelwal have been granted regular bail, and the applicant should be treated on parity. Revenue/State's Arguments: - The applicant was instrumental in disposing of the robbed gold and was in contact with the robbers. - The applicant received Rs. 11,00,000/- for facilitating the sale and disclosed his involvement and the amount received. - The applicant produced the said amount, which was seized by the Investigating Officer.