Bramjeet Singh vs State Nct Of Delhi Through Sho Paharganj

Girish Kathpalia, J

The accused/applicant seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 354/2025 of PS Paharganj for offence under Section 123/305(a)/317 BNS.

I have heard learned counsel for accused/applicant and learned APP assisted by learned counsel for complainant de facto and the IO/SI Pankaj Kumar.

Broadly speaking, the allegation against the accused/applicant is as follows. On 07.07.2025, the complainant de facto bought some jewellery articles in Amritsar for being sold in Delhi and along with his associate Prabh Singh, he came and stayed in a Guest House room in Delhi. But in the next morning, on waking up, the complainant de facto found Prabh Singh as well as those gold jewellery, some cash and his mobile phone missing. According to the complainant de facto, Prabh Singh had mixed some intoxicant in the meals on the night before the alleged theft. The accused Prabh Singh was apprehended and arrested from Aurangabad on 17.08.2025 and in the course of interrogation he stated having handed over the stolen articles to the present accused/applicant.

It is contended on behalf of accused/applicant that there is no admissible evidence against him, so sending him to jail would serve on purpose. Further, learned counsel for accused/applicant submits that he is ready to join investigation, as and when directed by the IO.

Learned APP also in all fairness does not dispute that apart from the confessional statement of Prabh Singh, there is no evidence against the present accused/applicant as nothing was recovered from possession of or at the instance of the accused/applicant in furtherance of that statement. However, it is also submitted by learned prosecutor that on the basis of interrogation of the accused/applicant, it came out that he had sold some of the stolen jewellery to Satbir Singh, Amarjeet Singh and Gagandeep Singh, all residents of Amritsar and those persons in their statement revealed having converted those jewellery articles into different other articles.

After recording the above circumstances, the predecessor bench had granted interim protection to the accused/applicant vide order dated 17.11.2025, directing the police not to arrest the accused/applicant till next date of hearing, which interim protection continues till date.

As regards the alleged sale of some of the stolen articles by the accused/applicant, the fact remains that nothing was recovered on the basis of the alleged confessional statement made by the accused/applicant to the IO in the course of interrogation.

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

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 concerned. However, it is also directed that the accused/applicant shall continue to join investigation, as and when directed in writing by the IO.

Pending application stands disposed of.