Rajesh @ Kanaster v. The State NCT Of Delhi
$~59 *
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RAJESH @ KANASTER .....Petitioner Through:
Mr. Anoop Kumar, Mr. Vikas Saini, Ms. Priyanka Siwas, Mr. Krishan Shokeen, Mr. Kawalpreet Singh, Mr. Jai Subhash Thakur and Mr. Dinesh Kumar Madesiya, Advocates.
versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through:
Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
O R D E R
% 19.08.2025 1.
The present application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (erstwhile Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732) seeks regular bail in proceedings arising from FIR No. 143/2025 registered under Sections 305/331(3)317(2)(5)/249/3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 registered at P.S., Roop Nagar. 2.
The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: 2.1.
A complaint was made by Rahul Gupta, alleging that on 7th May, 2024, theft had taken place in his house after breaking open the lock. 1 "BNSS"
2 "Cr.P.C."
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
Articles stolen included cash, foreign currency, gold, diamond and silver jewellery, as detailed in the complaint.
2.2.
During the course of investigation, CCTV footage was recovered which depicted the Applicant along with another associate, arriving at the place of incident on a scooty, breaking the lock of the house, and thereafter entering the premises. Further investigation revealed that the suspects were present at Partapur, Meerut, U.P., where a raid was conducted. However, by the time the police reached, the suspects had fled with the assistance of coaccused Chandra Shekhar. It was found that Chandra Shekhar was providing shelter to the suspects and that he, along with his sons namely Harsh @ Kallu and Gautam, was engaged in the work of melting and casting jewellery. In his statement, Chandra Shekhar disclosed that the Applicant and his associate were known to him and that he, along with his sons, had melted the stolen ornaments. Out of the proceeds, he retained a 40% share, while the remaining 60% was kept by the Applicant and his associate. 2.3.
The Applicant was searched and arrested on 30th May, 2025. At his instance, scooty which was allegedly used in the commission of the offence was recovered and from its trunk, certain gold-coloured ornaments and silver-coloured jewellery were also seized. On the basis of the above a chargesheet has been filed against the accused persons. 3.
Counsel for the Applicant makes the following submissions in support of the Application 3.1.
The Applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. 3.2.
Chargesheet has already been filed on 17th July, 2025, and therefore the Applicant's further custodial detention is not required for the purposes of investigation.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
3.3.
There is no incriminating evidence against the Applicant and that the very registration of the case amounts to a gross misuse of law by the State. 3.4.
The Applicant's right to a speedy trial is being infringed, as the proceedings are not progressing in a timely manner. 4.
On the other hand, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State, opposes the application on the following grounds:
4.1.
The Applicant is involved in commission of a serious premeditated offence.
4.2.
Sufficient material has been collected during investigation which directly implicates the Applicant, including CCTV footage in which the Applicant and his associate are visible, and the recovery of the scooty used in the commission of the offence as well as certain gold-like ornaments, at the instance of the Applicant.
4.3.
The Applicant has previously been involved in as many as 44 criminal cases, which demonstrates his propensity to re-offend and disentitles him from the relief sought.
4.4.
One of the co-accused in the present case continues to remain absconding, which highlights the concerted and organized nature of the offence and heightens the risk of the Applicant absconding as well if granted bail.
5.
The Court has considered the aforenoted contentions and perused the material on record. It is settled that the grant of bail is a matter of judicial discretion to be exercised on well-settled parameters, including the seriousness of the offence, the prima facie existence of reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has committed the offence, the likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and the The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
antecedents of the accused.
6.
The present case involves allegations of a premeditated act of theft in a dwelling, involving organised participation of multiple individuals, including the Applicant. The investigation has unearthed prima facie incriminating material against the Applicant. The CCTV footage collected during investigation, prima facie, depicts the Applicant along with his accomplice, approaching the place of incident on a scooty and breaking the lock and entering the house. Further, recoveries have been allegedly effected at the instance of the Applicant, including the scooty used in the commission of the crime and gold-like ornaments. These materials, taken together, provide sufficient ground at this stage to draw a prima facie inference regarding the Applicant's involvement.
7.
The Court also cannot lose sight of the Applicant's criminal antecedents. Mr. Mukesh Kumar submits that the Applicant has previously been involved in as many as 44 criminal cases. While mere pendency of other cases may not by itself justify denial of bail, such a long history of criminal activity is a relevant factor which indicates the propensity of the Applicant to re-offend and also enhances the risk of his absconding or influencing the witnesses if released on bail. 8.
Hence, having regard to the nature of the offence, the material unearthed during investigation and the Petitioner's previous involvement in the criminal cases, the Court finds no merit in the present application. 9.
In light of the foregoing, the present bail application is dismissed. Pending application(s) are also disposed of.
10.
It is clarified that any observations made in the present order are for the purpose of deciding the present bail application and should not influence The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
the outcome of the trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
SANJEEV NARULA, J AUGUST 19, 2025 nk The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.