Vishal vs State Of Nct Of Delhi

Girish Kathpalia, J

The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in case e-FIR No.80014479/2025 of PS Shaheen Bagh for offence under Section 310(2)/ 317(3)/61(2) BNS.

Broadly speaking, allegation of prosecution against the accused/applicant is that he tipped off the co-accused persons that two officials of the company in which he was working would be carrying cash amount of Rs. 25,31,000/-, after which the co-accused persons allegedly committed robbery of that amount and fled the spot. Further as per prosecution, the accused/applicant was apprehended and arrested with the help of technical surveillance and secret information.

Against the above backdrop, learned counsel for accused/applicant submits that it is the accused/applicant who had personally gone to the police station in compliance with the notice under Section 179 BNSS and he was arrested. It is also contended that there is no legally admissible evidence against the accused/applicant since even the alleged recovery of money was not from possession of the accused/applicant but from someone else. It is submitted that the accused/applicant a young boy is in jail for more than 15 months.

Learned APP assisted by IO/SI Nishant opposes the bail application on the ground that the accused/applicant was a conduit, who facilitated the alleged robbery. It is further submitted that bail application of the co- accused Ashu Khan was withdrawn today itself because the victim and the eyewitness are to be examined before the trial court on 02.06.2026. It is also submitted by learned APP for State that post-offence conduct of the accused/applicant is a significant pointer to his complicity, because after the alleged robbery, he stopped going to office and ultimately resigned.

So far as the witnesses to be examined before the trial court are concerned, admittedly, going by the role ascribed to the accused/applicant, their testimony would not deal with him. That being so, withdrawal of bail application by co-accused Ashu Khan would not be relevant.

As regards the material against the accused/applicant, it is submitted by learned APP on instructions of the IO that there was one Facebook Messenger call between the present accused/applicant and one of the alleged robbers; and that the mobile phone of the accused/applicant has been sent for forensic analysis in this regard.

As regards the so-called post-offence conduct, I am not convinced with the argument. For, even according to prosecution the accused/applicant was only a peon in the office and it is not difficult to believe that in such situation, under fear of police a person would stop going to office. Merely because the accused/applicant stopped going to the office, he cannot be taken to be culpable in the alleged offence.

Keeping in mind the aforesaid, I find no reason to further deprive liberty to the accused/applicant.

Therefore, the bail application is allowed and accused/applicant is directed to 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 Trial Court. Accompanying application stands disposed of.

A copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the concerned Jail Superintendent for informing the accused/applicant.