Cab owner implicated in murder case upon statement of driver granted bail by Delhi HC

New Delhi [India], July 16 : The Delhi High Court has granted bail to a cab owner who was implicated in a murder and loot case in Delhi's Paschim Vihar area upon the statement of his driver.
On July 7, 2016, a 68-year-old woman was found murdered at her home in west Delhi's Paschim Vihar. The woman lived with her nephew. Her husband had died a year back and she had no children.
According to police, Dheeraj, one of the prime accused worked as the caretaker of Krishna Devi's husband in the past. To make quick money, he along with his friends Aman Kumar and Hansraj hatched a plan to rob Devi.
Since Dheeraj knew the house well, he along with his friends robbed jewellery and cash worth Rs 12 lakh. When she resisted, they strangled her with her dupatta. Meanwhile, police managed to recover Rs 6.58 lakh from them and the vehicle used by the accused.
Advocate Ravi Drall and Aditi Drall who appeared for accused Hansraj argued that the accused is behind bars since a long-time testimony of a prosecution witness, the Investigating officer (IO) could not be completed for many dates as the IO did not present himself or otherwise took adjournments on various dates and now his evidence has been completed but the co-accused who was absconding from last eight years was arrested in May 2024 and now trial will begin again.
It was further argued that the petitioner was not seen in the CCTV footage and he was arrested purely on disclosure of a statement of a co-accused. The co-accused, Dheeraj who has been implicated in the matter, was engaged as a driver by the petitioner for one of his two Maruti cabs, which the petitioner operates.
The cab which was driven by Dheeraj used to ferry children to a school in Rohini. This is in the context of the fact that CDR records have been relied upon by the prosecution to show that the petitioner and other accused were in touch a day prior to the incident and there are various calls between them otherwise.
Advocate Drall for the petitioner points out that the reason for being in touch with Dheeraj is evident since he was driving his Maruti car. On the day of the incident, the car had been given to the mechanic for oil replacement and when the petitioner enquired, he was told that Dheeraj had taken it away.
The recovery of Rs 2 lac shown from the house of the accused was also falsified when the owner of the property deposed before the trial court that no recovery of money was made.
During the arguments, Advocate Ravi Drall stated that "Criminals are not born but made and they have chance of redemption."
Assistant Public Prosecutor from state opposed the bail and argued that a day before the date of the incident, all four co-accused were in touch with each other and their location is of area where the incident occurred.
Besides that, there is a recovery of Rs 2 lakhs which was part of the amount looted from the deceased. Further, he states that there is an inherent contradiction in the plea that on the date of the incident, the car was taken by the petitioner since he could be either with Dheeraj or with the car in question.
After noting all the submissions, the bench of Justice Anish Dayal in an order passed on July 12, said the opinion of this Court, considering the submissions recorded above, it would not be prudent to keep the petitioner behind bars for an indefinite period.
This Court finds it to be a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs 25,000 with one surety of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.