The provided text is an article about a taxi driver who was granted bail by the Delhi High Court in a murder and loot case. The article includes information about the crime, the suspects, and the arguments presented by the defense and prosecution during the bail hearing.The provided text is an article about a taxi driver who was granted bail by the Delhi High Court in a murder and loot case. The article includes information about the crime, the suspects, and the arguments presented by the defense and prosecution during the bail hearing. Here is a summary of the article: * A 68-year-old woman was found murdered in her home in Delhi’s Paschim Vihar area on July 7, 2016. * A taxi driver named Dheeraj, along with his friends Aman Kumar and Hansraj, was arrested for the crime. * Dheeraj used to work as a caretaker for the victim’s husband and knew the house well. * According to the police, Dheeraj and his friends robbed the victim of jewelry and cash worth Rs 12 lakh and strangled her when she resisted. * Hansraj was granted bail by the Delhi High Court on July 12, 2024, based on the statement of his driver, Dheeraj. * The court noted that Hansraj was not visible in the CCTV footage and that he was arrested purely on the basis of Dheeraj’s statement. * The court also noted that the amount of Rs 2 lakh recovered from Hansraj’s house was found to be fake. * The prosecution opposed bail, arguing that Hansraj had been in contact with the other co-defendants the day before the incident and that he was at the same location where the incident occurred. * The court ruled that it would not be wise to keep Hansraj in jail indefinitely and granted him bail on the condition that he furnish a personal surety of Rs 25,000 with one surety of the like amount.
Representative image
New Delhi (India), July 16 (ANI): The Delhi High Court has granted bail to a taxi driver involved in a murder and loot case in Delhi’s Paschim Vihar area on the basis of his driver’s statement.
On July 7, 2016, a 68-year-old woman was found murdered in her house in Paschim Vihar in West Delhi. The woman lived with her cousin. Her husband had died a year ago and she had no children.
Also Read | Doda Encounter: Our soldiers and their families are victims of BJP’s ‘wrong policies’, says Rahul Gandhi on Jammu and Kashmir attacks
According to the police, Dheeraj, one of the prime suspects, used to work as a caretaker of Krishna Devi’s husband. In order 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, the police managed to recover Rs 6.58 lakh from them and the vehicle used by the accused.
Also Read | Alcohol home delivery: Swiggy, BigBasket, Zomato, Blinkit may soon get permission to deliver alcohol to people’s homes, says report; See the list of states where the service could be available.
Advocate Ravi Drall and Aditi Drall, who appeared for the accused Hansraj, argued that the accused is in custody due to the lengthy testimony of a prosecution witness. The investigating officer could not complete the statements for many dates because the investigating officer had not come forward himself or otherwise granted an extension on several dates. Now his statement has been completed but the co-accused who was on the run for the last eight years was arrested in May 2024 and now the trial has started afresh.
It was further submitted that the petitioner was not visible in the CCTV footage and that he was arrested purely on the basis of the disclosure of a statement by a co-accused. The co-accused, Dheeraj who is involved in the case, was hired by the petitioner as a driver for one of his two Maruti taxis, which the petitioner operates.
The taxi driven by Dheeraj was used to take children to a school in Rohini. This is in the context of CDR data being used by the prosecution to show that the applicant and other accused were in contact a day before the incident and that there were otherwise several conversations between them.
Advocate Drall for the petitioner points out that the reason for contacting Dheeraj is obvious as he was driving his Maruti car. On the day of the incident, the car was given to the mechanic for oil change and when the petitioner asked about it, he was told that Dheeraj had taken it.
The amount of Rs 2 lakh recovered from the suspect’s house was also found to be fake as the owner of the property stated before the court that no money was recovered.
During oral arguments, defense attorney Ravi Drall stated, “Criminals are not born, they are made, and they have a chance at redemption.”
The assistant district attorney opposed bail, arguing that the four co-defendants had been in contact with each other the day before the incident and that they were at the same location where the incident occurred.
In addition, there is a recovery of Rs 2 lakhs, which was part of the amount looted from the deceased. He further submits that there is an inherent contradiction in the plea that on the date of incident the car was taken by the appellant as he could either be with Dheeraj or with the car in question.
After taking note of all the considerations, the Bench of Justice Anish Dayal ruled in an order on 12 July that in the opinion of this Court, in view of the considerations set out above, it would not be wise to keep the applicant behind bars for an indefinite period.
This court finds it fit to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail after furnishing a personal surety of Rs 25,000 with one surety of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the court. (ANI)
(This is an unedited and auto-generated story from the syndicated newsfeed. It is possible that LatestLY staff has not altered or edited the content.)
Share now
Show full article
Share now
