Gaji Ram Ray v. State Of NCT Of Delhi

$~7 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ GAJI RAM RAY .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Anil K. Khaware, Advocate versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through:

Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP.

SI Rajak Ahamed.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 17.03.2026 1.

By way of this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with FIR No. 80054489, dated 05.06.2025, registered at Police Station Chitranjan Park under Section 305 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ["BNS"]. A chargesheet has since been filed under Sections 306 and 317(2) of the BNS.

2.

I have heard Mr. Anil K. Khaware, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

3.

The orders dated 04.11.2025 and 11.12.2025 reflect that the complainant was represented on the said dates, however, the complainant is unrepresented today.

4.

The prosecution has filed a status report dated 29.10.2025. 5.

It is stated that the petitioner was working as a domestic help in the The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

residence of the complainant. The allegation in the FIR is that on 13.04.2025, the complainant had kept two gold bangles, one diamond ring and cash amounting to approximately Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 60,000/- in an almirah of her bedroom, but when she checked the almirah on 05.06.2025, she found that the items were stolen. The complainant thereafter checked the footage of the camera, and states that the petitioner could be seen searching the key of the almirah in the drawer. On this basis, the complainant expressed her strong suspicion that the petitioner had stolen the aforesaid articles.

6.

Mr. Khaware, in support of the application, submits that the petitioner has already been in custody in connection with the aforesaid offence for almost 9 months. It is submitted that the date of the incident has not been identified, and the CCTV footage also does not show the petitioner removing any articles from the almirah of the complainant. Further, the petitioner voluntarily surrendered before the Court in Jharkhand on 17.06.2025, and was thereafter taken in custody by the Delhi Police, which shows his bona fide.

7.

Mr. Vali, on the other hand, relies upon the CCTV footage which shows the petitioner opening the complainant's almirah, and also upon the recovery of two bangles of the complainant from the petitioner's mother in Chikaniya, P.S. Saraiyhat, District Dumka, Jharkhand. He submits that the petitioner ultimately surrendered only after non-bailable warrants were issued against him by the concerned Court. 8.

Mr. Khaware, in rejoinder, submits that the bangles in question were, in fact, given by his employer, with whom he had worked for 8 to 9 years, as a gift for the marriage of his sister. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

9.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that it is appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner in connection with the subject FIR. The offences alleged against him attract a maximum punishment of seven years' imprisonment. He has already been in judicial custody for a period of almost nine months. The chargesheet has been filed and prosecution evidence is in progress. While the effect of the CCTV footage and any other evidence will be examined at trial, it is not the prosecution's case that the CCTV footage captures any act of removal of goods from the complainant's almirah. As far as the recovery of the complainant's bangles are concerned, the rival stands taken by the parties will also have to be tested at trial. The petitioner's explanation is not totally implausible or incredible, so as to deserve outright rejection. The petitioner is about 25 years of age, and Mr. Vali also confirms, upon instructions, that he has no criminal antecedents. 10.

For the aforesaid reasons, it is directed that the petitioner be released on regular bail in connection with FIR No. 80054489, dated 05.06.2025, registered at Police Station Chitranjan Park, subject to furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, and subject to the following conditions: a. The petitioner shall join the trial on each and every date of hearing; b. The petitioner will furnish his mobile number to the IO, and shall keep the said mobile phone in working condition, and always switched on. The mobile number shall not be changed or switched off without prior intimation to the IO;

c. The petitioner will give his residential address to the IO, and will The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

not change his residential address without prior intimation to the IO;

d. The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, contact or attempt to contact the complainant or any witness, nor shall he tamper with the evidence in any manner whatsoever;

e. The petitioner shall not commit any offence during the pendency of the proceedings.

11.

The bail application stands disposed of in the above terms. 12.

It is clarified that the observations made herein are solely for the purpose of adjudication of the present bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, nor shall they prejudice the rights and contentions of the parties at any stage of the proceedings.

13.

Copy of the order be communicated to the concerned jail superintendent electronically for information and necessary compliances. PRATEEK JALAN, J MARCH 17, 2026 SS/AD/ The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.