Court Denies Bail in Gurugram Cab Robbery Case

GURUGRAM: A court has rejected the regular bail application of an accused in a case involving an alleged late-night cab robbery in which a passenger was made to transfer money through UPI and was dispossessed of his phone, laptop and personal documents.

The order was passed by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Manish Kumar. The applicant, identified in the case record as G M Sadiq of Govindpur in West Bengal, has been in custody since June 20. Bail was refused after the court considered the seriousness of the accusation, the investigation status and the recoveries attributed to police.

The prosecution case begins around 1.55am on June 19. The complainant, Abhinav Mishra, had finished a night shift and was waiting for transport at Iffco Chowk when a white multi-purpose cab carrying three men stopped. After he boarded, the occupants allegedly obtained access to his phone and transferred Rs 16,000 from one bank account and Rs 900 from a payments-bank account.

The complainant further alleged that the men took his phone, laptop, cash and a wallet containing identity and vehicle papers before leaving him near Genpact Chowk in DLF Phase 5. These details remain allegations to be proved at trial; a bail decision is not a conviction or a final finding that the incident occurred exactly as the prosecution describes.

Police later arrested Sadiq and another man near Sector 48, followed by a third accused. Investigators reported recovering the vehicle, some of the complainant's property and a knife. The court also noted that a test identification procedure had been completed and that the investigation was continuing.

The defence argued that the applicant was innocent, had no previous criminal record and had already spent time in custody. The court nevertheless found that release was not warranted at this point, citing the nature of the alleged offence and concerns that the accused could leave the jurisdiction or influence witnesses. Those observations relate to bail risk; the prosecution still carries the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The case is also a practical warning for late-shift workers. A private vehicle offering an unbooked lift at a transport hub does not provide the journey record, driver identity and live tracking available through a verified booking. Passengers should share trip details, check the vehicle before boarding and avoid unlocking financial applications at another person's request.

Sadiq remains entitled to challenge the order and defend the case. The next meaningful stage will be the filing and scrutiny of evidence, where recoveries, identification and the alleged digital transfers must be connected to each accused through lawful proof.