Amit Kumar Soni vs. State Nct Of Delhi

Held

The Court granted regular bail to the applicant, Amit Kumar Soni, pending trial. The Court noted that the applicant's custodial interrogation was not required even upon his initial arrest, and the investigation was complete with a charge-sheet being drawn up. The Court acknowledged the applicant's alleged role as a facilitator for the sale of gold, which was eventually sold against a GST-paid invoice, and that he received Rs. 40,000/- as commission. The Court also considered that the applicant had no prior criminal involvement and that co-accused had been granted bail. The bail was granted subject to furnishing a personal bond, a local surety, providing an active cellphone number, and not tampering with evidence or contacting prosecution witnesses. The Court explicitly stated that this order did not comment on the merits of the pending trial.

Facts

The applicant, Amit Kumar Soni, is an accused in FIR No. 104/2020, registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act, concerning a robbery of gold bars and cash. The complainant alleged being robbed at gunpoint by individuals posing as police officers. The applicant's name did not appear in the FIR, but he was later implicated for allegedly facilitating the sale of the robbed gold (2 kgs) to co-accused Hanuman Bansal for Rs. 1.03 crores, and receiving Rs. 40,000/- as commission. The applicant claims he was unaware the gold was robbed and introduced Rajesh Kumar Soni to Hanuman Bansal for what he believed was a legitimate trade transaction, facilitated by a GST-paid invoice. The applicant has been in judicial custody since August 14, 2020, and investigation is reportedly complete.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant, who claims to be a small-time goldsmith and was not present in Delhi on the date of the alleged incident, should be granted regular bail, considering his alleged role in facilitating the sale of robbed gold. Petitioner's Arguments: - The applicant's name is not in the FIR, and he was not in Delhi on the incident date. - He was unaware the gold was robbed and believed it was a routine trade transaction, as the sale was conducted with a GST-paid invoice. - He introduced co-accused Rajesh Kumar Soni to Hanuman Bansal due to the large quantity of gold and his own financial limitations. - No recovery was made from the applicant, and he cooperated with the investigation. - Co-accused Hanuman Bansal and Dilip Khandelwal have been granted bail. Respondent's Arguments: - The applicant acted as a link between the co-accused for the disposal of robbed gold for a significant sum. - The applicant received Rs. 40,000/- as his share for facilitating the sale of the robbed gold.