High CourtsSingle Bench

Ashish Kumar vs State (Gnct Of Delhi)

Delhi High Court · Decided on 10 July 2025 · Citation: (2025) 07 DEL CK 0883

HON’BLE JUDGES
Girish Kathpalia, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 3(5), 309(4), 311
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 2222 Of 2025
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 341 words

Girish Kathpalia, J

1.

The accused/applicant seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 276/2025 of PS New Ashok Nagar for offence under Section 309(4)/311/3(5) BNS.

2.

Learned APP accepts notice and in all fairness submits on instructions of IO/SI Vishant Bhardwaj that the IO does not need custody of the accused/applicant in view of his insignificant role in the alleged offence.

3.

Although, none appears for the accused/applicant, learned APP fairly submits that no purpose would be served by adjourning the matter.

4.

In his complaint, which got registered as the impugned FIR, the complainant de facto, working as a property builder in New Ashok Nagar, alleged that on 23.05.2025 at about 11:00 pm when he was present in his office with his servant Vasudev, the accused persons namely Sachin, Rinku and Ashish (the accused/applicant herein) came and started abusing him; that Sachin told his servant to stand guard outside the office and Rinku pointed a pistol, after which Rinku and Sachin told him to get Rs. 10,00,000/- from his house, otherwise they would kill him; that he called up his wife and asked her to hand over Rs. 2,00,000/- to Vasudev; that the present accused/applicant, along with Vasudev, went to his house where his wife handed over Rs. 2,00,000/-, and the said amount was brought to his office; that Rinku and Sachin returned Rs. 1,00,000/- to his servant and went away taking Rs. 1,00,000/-.

5.

Apart from the role ascribed to the accused/applicant, it remains not understandable as to if the accused persons were demanding Rs. 10,00,000/-, having obtained Rs. 2,00,000/- from wife of the complainant de facto, why would they return Rs. 1,00,000/-.

6.

Considering the overall circumstances as described above, I find no reason to deprive the accused/applicant liberty.

7.

The application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of his arrest, the accused/applicant shall be released on bail, subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the IO/SHO.