Delhi HC refuses interim bail to man accused of looting Rs 1.5 cr, shooting guard

New Delhi [India], May 14 (ANI): Delhi High Court has refused to grant interim bail to a man, who is accused of looting an amount of Rs 1.5 crore and shooting a cash transportation vehicle guard outside an ATM in Delhi in 2014.
A bench of Justice Brijesh Sethi, while dismissing the interim bail plea of Rizwan Iqbal on Wednesday, observed that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature.
"There are allegations against the petitioner in the instant FIR that he along with his co-accused had looted an amount of Rs 1.5 crores and shot the guard of the cash van outside City Bank ATM at Kamla Nagar, Delhi," the court said in its order.
"However, without commenting on the merits of the case, this court finds that the petitioner's father had not tested positive for COVID-19 but was precautionarily quarantined. At present, he is stated to be suffering from asthma and is taking treatment at home and is not hospitalised. Petitioner has a 26-year-old brother, who can also take care of his father. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this court finds no grounds to grant interim bail," it added.
The petitioner had approached the High Court seeking interim bail for 45 days on the ground that he had to take care of his father, who recently came out of quarantine because he was suspected of suffering from COVID-19 and is an asthmatic patient.
Iqbal has been in custody since November 30, 2017, in the case filed under Sections 392 (robbery), 411 (dishonestly receiving stolen property), 413 (habitually dealing in stolen property), 414 (assisting in the concealment of stolen property), 506 (criminal intimidation), 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Advocate Amjad Khan, counsel for the petitioner, told the court that the earlier bail application of petitioner was rejected by this court on April 9, 2020, specifically mentioning that petitioner's father was already quarantined for seven days and after passing of next seven days, there may be a change of circumstances, and, that now since the report of petitioner's father is negative, he needs interim bail to take care of his ailing father aged 65 years and to meet the financial needs of the family by taking over his father's business of selling fruits and vegetables.
Khan submitted that the petitioner was released on interim bail by a trial court for three days on March 26, 2018, to attend his sister's marriage and that he had surrendered on time and that there is no likelihood of petitioner fleeing if he is released on interim bail.
Additional Public Prosecutor advocate Panna Lal Sharma, on the other hand, opposed the interim bail application on the ground that similar application of petitioner was rejected by this court on April 9, 2020. (ANI)