Pragati Maidan Tunnel dacoity: Court dismisses bail plea of man accused of doing recce

New Delhi [India], August 30 : Delhi's Patiala House Court dismissed the bail application of a man accused of doing recce of the area before the sensational Pragati Maidan Tunnel gunpoint dacoity of Rs 50 lakh from a businessman in June.
The accused shot himself accidentally by a countrymade pistol in his possession and was hospitalized. A separate case in this regard was lodged in Delhi's Burari.
However, an accused Pawan has already been granted in the robbery case.
Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Shailender Malik on Tuesday dismissed the bail plea of Vishal considering his case different from that of Pawan.
"With regard to the applicant/accused it has already come on record that he carried out recce prior to the incident and thereafter one day prior to the incident he received a gunshot injury from the country-made pistol being in his possession. Therefore separate FIR was registered," ASJ Shailender Malik said in the order on August 29.
He observed, "That apart, there is evidence showing that at the time of incidence applicant/ accused may not be present at the place of incident but was in contact with his co-accused persons as is reflected from CDR and call location."
Moreover, that fact is corroborated by recovery from his instance. Therefore no case is made out for a grant of bail. Application accordingly stands dismissed, the court ordered.
"No doubt one of the co-accused Pawan Kumar Jha has been released on bail. However, I find that his case is altogether different than the case of applicant/accused as said accused was only driving a car," the court said in the order passed on August 29.
The present case has been registered in respect of the Incident of June 24 2023 when an armed robbery took place in Pragati Maidan Tunnel wherein four armed robbers who came on two motorcycles stopped one OLA cab and forcibly robbed a passenger /businessman at gunpoint by taking away his bag carrying Rs.1.5-2 lakhs and fled away.
It is also alleged that a total sum of Rs 50 lakhs was robbed from the complainant/victim.
During the investigation, three accused persons namely Usman Ali alias Kallu, Anuj Mishra alias Sanki and Kuldeep alias Lungad were arrested from whom there was a recovery of Rs 1,03,000 cash, an automatic pistol and two live cartridges besides a motorcycle.
The court noted that from the disclosure of those accused persons they robbed Rs 50 lakhs and accused Usman was the mastermind.
Whereas later in the investigation applicant/accused Vishal was also arrested on June 28, 2023. 
It is further alleged that during an investigation of the possession of Vishal, Rs one lakh was recovered which belonged to the complainant.
It is also in the allegations that applicant Vishal conducted the recce before the incident. However, one day prior to the incident, he accidentally fired upon himself the country-made pistol. 
Because of that injury, he was hospitalized.
During arguments, it was stated that the applicant/accused Vishal was in contact with other co-accused persons at the time of the alleged robbery as is reflected from CDR and call location.
It was submitted by the Counsel for the accused that he was in judicial custody since June 26, 2023, and is no longer required in the investigation.
It was further submitted that one of the co-accused namely Pawan Kumar Jha has already
been granted bail. It is further submitted that at the relevant time of incidence accused was hospitalized and was taking treatment for his injuries, as such was not involved in the alleged crime.
On the other hand, an additional public prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted
that accused was part of the conspiracy and was part of the group which committed
robbery upon the complainant and took away Rs 50 lakhs at gunpoint.
It was also submitted that it is due to the fact that he accidentally shot himself with his own country-made pistol due to which he got himself hospitalized but was still in contact with other co-accused persons.
It was further argued that there was a recovery of Rs one lakhs from the applicant/accused and that money is of the complainant as is reflected from the stamp on currency notes.