RAM DHAR SINGH vs STATE NCT OF DELHI

$~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.
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.

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 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 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 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 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: –
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.

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

BAIL APPLN. 2881/2024 Page 1 of 9