Carjacking outside upscale Delhi restaurant: 3 men steal Tata Harrier, kidnap driver
Police said the incident took place in the early hours of Sunday.
The driver, Sagar, who goes by one name, was waiting outside a restaurant in the Qutub Institutional Area. His employer and his wife were attending a party and he was sitting in his employer's luxury SUV — a Tata Harrier.
Around 5 am, three men approached the vehicle.
Before Sagar could realise what their intentions were, police said, two men forcibly entered the car through the back door while the third brandished a pistol at Sagar and ordered him to move over.
Sagar further recounted to the police that he was assaulted and confined in the car as the assailants made their escape. After an hour of driving around, the carjackers would drop off Sagar on Asola Road before fleeing with his phone, money, and his employer's vehicle.
Sagar made his way to the Kishangarh police station, on foot, before filing a complaint.
Police then lodged an FIR under sections 311 (robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt), 309(6) (robbery), 140(2) (kidnapping or abduction), and 3(5) (common intent) of the BNS, along with sections 25, 27, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act.
Police conducted technical surveillance, tracking the location of the SUV and tracing its movement.
The men were soon traced and nabbed. Police said the trio — Yogesh (34), Ashok Kumar (40), and Banty (25) — are habitual offenders with prior involvement in multiple cases of robbery, snatching, and burglary, said police.
All three were in the car when they were nabbed.
The police recovered the looted Tata Harrier, two stolen mobile phones, the vehicle key, and a country-made pistol with a live cartridge used in the offence.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
33 minutes ago
- Time of India
Cops crack down on dating apps promoting obscene video chats
Hyderabad: The Hyderabad cybercrime police have registered a suo-moto case against several mobile dating applications accused of promoting sexually explicit video interactions in exchange for money. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The case was initiated following observations made during web patrolling by constable Ch Venu Gopal, who flagged multiple apps offering live video chats with women. In his complaint, Gopal stated that after users create a free profile, they are prompted to purchase virtual tokens to initiate video calls with female hosts of their choice. "Almost every video call quickly turns vulgar. The women either expose themselves or persuade users to shift to WhatsApp, where they continue to share explicit content," the constable noted. Police said that many of these apps, despite branding themselves as 'safe dating' or 'friend-making' platforms, are actually facilitating sexually suggestive chats in return for payment. Among the 37 apps named in the FIR, several have amassed millions of downloads on the Google Play Store. "These platforms are camouflaging sex-based commerce under the guise of dating or social networking. It is not just morally degrading, but also a clear violation of laws relating to the indecent representation of women and the transmission of obscene material," the complaint stated. A case has been registered under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Section 79 (Gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman), Section 143 (Trafficking of person), Section 144 (Exploitation of trafficked persons), Section 294 (Sale of obscene material) and Section 316(2) (Criminal breach of trust). Additionally, charges have been invoked under Sections 3 and 4 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now "We are writing to Google Play Store to seek details about these apps. Our investigation will focus on identifying who is behind these platforms, their operating locations, the women featured, and how the revenue is generated," said a senior cybercrime official. "The sale of virtual tokens appears to be the primary revenue model, cleverly masked under social interaction." The police have not ruled out the involvement of organised networks and said further action will depend on digital forensics and platform responses.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
NIA judge junks claim ATS wanted to arrest RSS chief
Mumbai: In the detailed 1,036-page judgment in the 2008 Malegaon blast case, the special NIA court, while acquitting all seven accused, has dismissed claims that senior officers from the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) had directed one of the investigating officers to arrest RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat in the case. Special judge A K Lahoti said the court did not find force in the contentions raised by the lawyer for a now-acquitted accused, math pontiff Sudhakar Dhar Dwivedi. The lawyer had alleged investigating officer Mehboob Mujawar of ATS allegedly refused to carry out the order to arrest Bhagwat, saying he found no evidence of his involvement. As a result, Mujawar was "entangled in a false case by ATS." While ex-ATS cop Mehboob Mujawar had first made the claim about being under pressure to arrest RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat in 2016, he was back in the news on Friday, repeating his statement a day after the trial court's verdict in the Malegaon blast case. Mujawar was not among witnesses who deposed before the special court in the blast case, but he first made this claim before a Solapur court in 2016 in a case registered against him. The special NIA court held that was "his (Mujawar's) defence before the particular court" and was not presented as testimony in the Malegaon blast case. You Can Also Check: Mumbai AQI | Weather in Mumbai | Bank Holidays in Mumbai | Public Holidays in Mumbai The judge concluded that while Mujawar was a member of the ATS team investigating the case, documents submitted by the defence lawyer did not provide sufficient, provable evidence to consider the claim. The judge noted these documents included a certified copy of an application and a statement given by Mujawar in a separate case. The judge stated that these documents alone could not be considered evidence in the trial, as Mujawar was not examined as a witness in the Malegaon blast case. "So merely placing some documents is not sufficient. It must be proved through the cogent and reliable testimony of the concerned witness," the judge said. Pointing to evidence that came on record pertaining to Mujawar, the trial court judge referred to the statement of ATS ACP Mohan Kulkarni, who had denied the suggestion given in his cross-examination that Mujawar was sent by them (ATS) to bring one senior office-bearer of RSS. Kulkarni admitted Mujawar was sent to trace absconding accused Ramji Kalsangra and Sandeep Dange. He denied the suggestion that Mujawar had publicly declared that the ATS shot dead two persons and hence his name was not included in the list of witnesses filed with the chargesheet. In 2016, Mujawar had claimed Dange and Kalsangra were "no more" but were being still shown as alive by police officers. This claim too was made in an affidavit before the Solapur court when Mujawar was accused in a case of criminal intimidation and under the Arms Act. Kalsangra's family demanded a probe into allegations of murder. In May 2016, it was reported Dange was spotted in Nepal on several occasions. The cross-examination of NIA Dy SP Anil Dubey showed he knew Mujawar was an ATS team member. Mujawar was called to the NIA office, and the agency inquired with him about his statement to the media about the deaths.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Claim of order to arrest Bhagwat: Court says can't take as evidence
A DAY after the Special Court acquitted seven accused in the 2008 Malegaon blast case, allegations by a former Anti Terrorism Squad (ATS) officer that he was asked to arrest RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat found mention in the detailed judgment, a copy of which was made available on Friday. The court, however, said that since he was not examined as a witness in the case, and his statement was made before a Solapur court, it cannot be construed as evidence. The order, which has a separate section titled 'Directions to arrest RSS chief', states that the lawyer of one of the accused, Sudhakar Dhar Dwivedi, had, during the trial, brought a statement made by the former ATS officer, Mehboob Mujawar, in a Solapur court which said: 'The senior ATS officers had given directions to him (Mujawar) to arrest Mr Mohan Bhagwat (RSS chief) by taking him in custody.' According to the statement, Mujawar denied Bhagwat's role and declined to arrest him. A false case was then allegedly filed by the ATS against Mujawar, who was later acquitted. The court observed that the National Investigation Agency (NIA) had already inquired with the former ATS officer on his allegations. On Thursday, Mujawar repeated these claims before the media. He named an IPS officer, who, he claimed, had asked him to arrest Bhagwat. He alleged that since he did not arrest Bhagwat, a false case under the Arms Act was registered against him (Mujawar) at the officer's behest and he was suspended. Mujawar claimed that a Solapur court later acquitted him in the case. The officer against whom the allegation was made did not respond. Posting a video clip of Mujawar's statement, the BJP said on X: 'This is not just a scandal, it is an abuse of power, a conspiracy against the nation, and a sinister plot to malign nationalists. Who were the higher authorities? Who has the political cover for this witch-hunt? Who tried to falsely frame the RSS chief?' In its order, the court said: 'The PW-320 (ACP Mohan Kulkarni, ATS chief investigating officer) had denied the suggestion given in his cross examination that Mehboob Mujawar was sent by them to bring one senior office-bearer of RSS. But admitted that he was sent to find out / trace out AA-1 (absconding accused Ramji Kalsangra) and AA-2 (absconding accused Sandeep Dange). He also denied the suggestion that Mehboob Mujawar publicly declared that the ATS shot dead two persons and hence, his name was not included in the list of witness filed with chargesheet.' The order also refers to the deposition of Anil Dubey, NIA's investigating officer, who said that Mujawar was called to the agency's office and they inquired with him about his statements in the media about the deaths of Kalsangra and Dange. In 2016, Mujawar had claimed that he was 'witness to their killings and the disposal of their bodies as victims of 26/11 terror attacks'. He claimed that the duo had been shot dead in custody by the ATS, and he was later asked to lead attempts to look for them. The two wanted accused have not been traced till date. The court said Mujawar was not listed as a witness, nor was he examined as a witness by either the prosecution or the defence. On the documents containing Mujawar's allegations mentioned in the Solapur court, the court said: 'The statement recorded u/s 313 of CrPC (Criminal Procedure Code, statement of accused) cannot be construed as evidence on the counts that the statement is not recorded before this court and in support of those documents, he is not examined as a witness before this court. So, merely placing some documents is not sufficient. It must be proved through the cogent and reliable testimony of the concerned witness.' 'Moreover, those documents show that it was his defence before the particular court and not before this court. Therefore, I did not find any force in the aforesaid contention raised by the Ld (learned) Advocate for the A-10 (Sudhakar Dhar Dwivedi),' concludes the section on Mujawar's allegations.
