Broad Daylight Robbery by Impersonating Police: Accused Played Central Role, No Parity with Co-Accused: Delhi High Court Denies Bail

“It is the accused/applicant, who not only procured the motorbike with fake number plate but also drove the same at the time of robbery”. - Delhi High Court refused to grant bail in connection with a brazen robbery involving impersonation of police officers and daylight snatching of purported gold in a crowded area of South Delhi. Justice Girish Kathpalia, while dismissing the bail plea, emphasized that the “accused played a central role in the execution of the crime,” and therefore, the principle of parity with other co-accused could not be invoked.

The case originated from FIR No. 346/2024 registered at PS Kotla Mubarakpur. The complainant, Ravindra Sharma, acting on the suggestion of his friend Sanjay Sharma that gold could be purchased at a 30% cheaper rate from Nepal, went to the South Extension Metro Station with his nephew Aman on October 3, 2024, carrying ₹11,00,000 in cash. As narrated in the judgment, “On direction of Sanjay Sharma he met one Deepak, who led him and Aman to an office in J-Block, South Extension Part 1. In the office, he handed over cash of ₹11,00,000 to Deepak who handed over gold in a bag.”
While walking toward their car with Deepak and Aman, “two persons came on a Pulsar motorbike... wearing police shoes and khaki pants.” One of them “was carrying a pistol-like instrument,” and snatched the bag. The robbers fled on the motorbike, “which was being driven by the accused/applicant.”

The central legal issue before the Court was whether Sukhbir @ Kallu was entitled to bail on the ground of parity with two other accused: Sifarish Khan, who had already been granted regular bail, and Akhileshwar Kumar @ Sanjay, who had obtained anticipatory bail from the Supreme Court.

The Court categorically rejected the argument of parity. Justice Kathpalia observed: “So far as bail granted to Sifarish Khan is concerned, his role was completely distinct in the sense that he was not present at the spot and had allegedly made overall planning... there is no evidence presently against him.”

Referring to the Supreme Court's grant of anticipatory bail to Akhileshwar Kumar @ Sanjay, the Court clarified: “The anticipatory bail was granted by the Supreme Court, finding that no custodial interrogation was required. Even otherwise, the role ascribed to Akhileshwar Kumar @ Sanjay was that he allured the complainant to enter into the transaction for purchase of gold.”
However, the accused Sukhbir's role was of a different magnitude: “It is the accused/applicant, who not only procured the motorbike with fake number plate but also drove the same at the time of robbery.”

The Court placed emphasis on the method of the crime, observing: “The alleged robbery was committed in broad daylight in a busy area of South Extension... Further, they also used a lighter which looked like a pistol and snatched the bag carrying gold worth ₹11,00,000.”

The impersonation of police was particularly noted: “The accused/applicant and his pillion accomplice wore pants and shoes to convey an impression as if they are police officials.”

In response to the defence counsel’s argument that the snatched gold was fake, the Court dismissed the assertion: “As regards submission... that the allegedly snatched gold was found fake, the IO discloses that the said gold has not even been recovered till date. It appears that learned counsel for accused/applicant has not been briefed with truth.”

Justice Kathpalia ultimately held that: “Considering the overall circumstances as mentioned above, especially the daring manner in which broad daylight robbery in a busy area was allegedly committed and two of the co-accused declared Proclaimed Offenders and also role of the accused/applicant described above, I do not find it a fit case to release the accused/applicant on bail.
The bail application was accordingly dismissed.

Date of Decision: May 2, 2025