Ashish Kumar v. The State (GNCT of Delhi)

Delhi High Court · 10 Jul 2025 · 2025:DHC:5436
Girish Kathpalia
BAIL APPLN. 2222/2025
2025:DHC:5436
criminal appeal_allowed

AI Summary

Anticipatory bail granted to accused with insignificant role in alleged extortion case as custody was not required for investigation.

Full Text
Translation output
BAIL APPLN. 2222/2025
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 10.07.2025
BAIL APPLN. 2222/2025
ASHISH KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: None.
VERSUS
THE STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for the State
WITH
PSI Vishant, PS New Ashok
Nagar
CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)

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 GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2025.07.10 17:42:32 +05'30' BAIL APPLN. 2222/2025 pages 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. (JUDGE) JULY 10, 2025/‘rs’