Court Grants Bail to Accused in High-Profile Robbery Case Amid Witness Identification Issues.


23 August 2024 Bail and Antcipatory Bail >> Criminal Law   |   Evidence >> Criminal Law   |   FIR >> Criminal Law   |   Theft >> Criminal Law  

In a recent ruling of Neeraj v/s The State NCT Of Delhi, a court has granted regular bail to a petitioner involved in a significant robbery case, highlighting concerns over witness identification and the lengthy duration of custody. The petitioner was implicated in FIR No. 781/2021, which includes serious charges under the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act, such as robbery at gunpoint.

The application for bail, filed under Section 439 read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, followed a dismissal by the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) on May 8, 2024. The petitioner, who has been in custody since July 7, 2021, for nearly three years, argues that he was falsely implicated. Notably, key witnesses in the case, Harish Goel and Neena Goel, were unable to identify the petitioner during their court testimonies, raising questions about the evidence against him.

 
 

The State, however, opposed the bail application, citing the heinous nature of the allegations and the petitioner’s extensive criminal history, which includes eleven previous cases. The prosecution warned that given the petitioner's background, there was a significant risk he might flee if released. They noted that another co-accused, Narender Lala, was granted bail despite a similar history, adding to the complexity of the case.

In weighing the arguments, the court considered both the gravity of the charges and the lack of conclusive identification from the witnesses. Given these circumstances, the court ultimately decided to grant bail, imposing several conditions to mitigate potential risks. The petitioner is required to furnish a personal bond of ?40,000 and ensure consistent communication with the Investigating Officer. He must also avoid any criminal activity, maintain a stable residence, and seek court permission before leaving the country.

The court emphasized the importance of adhering to these conditions as a safeguard during the legal proceedings. With this decision, the petitioner is afforded a chance to contest the charges against him outside of jail, while the legal process continues. A copy of the order has been sent to the concerned jail superintendent for compliance, marking a pivotal moment in this ongoing legal battle.

  

Indian Penal Code, 1860    Arms Act, 1959    Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973