Mr. Lakshay Yadav and Mr. Gourav Sharma, Advocates v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Judgment

1. Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) read with Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’), has been filed by the Applicant

seeking grant of regular bail in FIR No. 0464/2018 dated 24.09.2018 registered at Police Station (P.S.) Prashant Vihar, Delhi for offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). Brief Facts

2. The case of the prosecution as borne out from the material placed on record is that on 24.09.2018, P.S. Prashant Vihar, Delhi received an information that victim, namely, Deepak has been admitted to the hospital with alleged history of stab injury. Subsequently, the statement of an eye- witness, namely, Manjit Kumar was recorded and on basis of it, the subject FIR was registered under Section 307 IPC.

2.1. It is stated that since, the victim-Deepak passed away during the BAIL APPLN. 419/2025 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/03/2025 at 11:04:19 treatment, Section 302 IPC was added to the subject FIR.

2.2. It is stated that during course of investigation, statement(s) of eye witnesses were also recorded and it was also revealed that the accused- Bhupender Singh Mehra alias Jhota alias Hardeep (i.e., the Applicant herein), who was arrested in another case bearing FIR No. 546/2018 registered at P.S. Prashant Vihar, Delhi for offences under Section 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959 has disclosed his involvement in the subject FIR.

2.3. It is stated after following the due process, the one-day police custody remand of the Applicant/accused was taken. Subsequently, the weapon of offence i.e., the knife was recovered on instance of Applicant/accused and Section 201 IPC as well as Section 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (‘Arms Act’) were added to the subject FIR.

2.4. It is stated that the investigation in the subject FIR has been completed and charge-sheet dated 14.02.2019 stands filed.

2.5. It is stated that the charge-sheet dated 14.02.2019 in the subject FIR has been filed under Section 302/201 IPC and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act has been filed before the Trial Court and charges against the accused persons have been framed under Section 302 IPC and Section 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act. The Trial is at the stage of recording of prosecution evidence. Arguments on behalf of the Applicant

3. Mr. Yadav, learned counsel for the Applicant states that the Applicant/accused has been falsely implicated in the subject FIR.

3.1. He states that till the date of filing of the present bail application, the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses out of 26 witnesses. He states that even after the lapse of six (6) years, the prosecution has not preferred to BAIL APPLN. 419/2025 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/03/2025 at 11:04:19 examine the complainant i.e., Manjit Kumar, who is alleged to be an eye- witness of the incident narrated in the charge-sheet.

3.2. He states that it is unlikely that the trial will be concluded in near future and the Applicant/accused cannot be subjected to long incarceration, waiting for the examination of all the eye-witnesses for grant of regular bail.

3.3. He states that the Applicant herein cannot be denied of his valuable right to speedy justice. He states that the matter is next listed on 01.05.2025 and the Trial Court is over-burdened.

3.4. He states that since, the investigation in the present case has been completed, the Applicant/accused is not in position to tamper with the prosecution evidence.

3.5. He states that in view of the aforesaid, this Court may be pleased to release the Applicant/accused on regular bail in the subject FIR. Arguments on behalf of the State

4. In reply, Mr. Laksh Khanna, learned APP opposes the bail application of the Applicant.

4.1. He states that there is sufficient material on record which shows the involvement of the Applicant herein in the commissioning of the offence of murder of the deceased, namely, Deepak.

4.2. He states that the Applicant herein cannot be enlarged on regular bail, as the material public witnesses, who are eye-witnesses i.e., Manjeet Kumar, Ranjay Prasad and Rakesh Shokeen have not been examined till date.

4.3. He states that the examination of the said witnesses is also important, as one of the public witness Manoj Das has already turned hostile and therefore, the examination of other eye witnesses is relevant to prove the case of the prosecution. He states infact matter was listed before the Trial BAIL APPLN. 419/2025 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/03/2025 at 11:04:19 Court on 06.02.2025 for the testimony of eye-witness Mr. Ranjay Prasad; however, the said witness failed to appear. He states that prosecution is taking steps for producing the eye-witnesses.

4.4. He states that the allegation against the Applicant herein are serious in nature and the Applicant may extend any kind of threat to the material public witnesses, if the Applicant is enlarged on bail. He states that the Applicant has criminal priors and refers to pendency of FIR No. 302/2017 and FIR No. 546/2018, both registered at P.S. Prashant Vihar against the Applicant Findings and Analysis

5. This Court has heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. The status report/reply filed by prosecution before this Court has been taken into consideration.

6. Before delving into the analysis of the facts of this case, it would be apposite to refer to few decisions of the Supreme Court on grant of bail. The Supreme Court in the case of Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee1, State of Uttar Pradesh v. Amarmani Tripathi2, and Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh3 has set out the conditions to be considered by Court while granting bail, which are summarized as under: - (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;