Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Mr. Surya Pratap Singh Rana and Mr. Manan Sharma, Advocates v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 1628/2025 IMRAN KHAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Nipun Katyal, Mr. Aishwary Mishra, Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Mr. Surya Pratap Singh Rana and Mr. Manan Sharma, Advocates versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for the State with Insp. Vijay Kumar SHO/ Kalindi Kunj. CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA O R D E R % 09.09.2025 1. By way of the present application, the applicant seeks grant of regular bail in FIR bearing no. 369/2024, registered at Police Station Kalindi Kunj, Delhi for the commission of offence punishable under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereafter 'BNS'). 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that a PCR call was received on 06-07.07.2024, regarding the accused having killed the sister of the caller. The record reveals that the complainant had informed the police that “Mustfa Masjid se aage wali gali no. 2, that caller bol raha hai caller ke jija ne caller ki sister ko jann se maar diya hai. Sister ke sair par kuch mara hai jis se uski death ho gyi hai. 12 baje death ho gyi thi. Caller ki 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 10/09/2025 at 11:52:03 family walo ko btaye bina hi bahen ko samshan ghat le kar ja rahe the”. Another DD No. 81A pursuant to the above mentioned DD No. 80A was received informing the police that “New Raja General Store Samsul Road, Jaitpur, Extension, Part-02, caller ke sadhu ne Sali ko mar diya hain or caller abhi aaya hai yahan Ghaziabad se”. When the police had reached at the spot, the complainant had informed that the deceased, who was his real sister, died on 06.07.2024. The post-mortem of the deceased was conducted at AIIMS Hospital which opined the cause of death “Asphyxia due to combined effect of smothering and ligature strangulation". During the course of further investigation, the present accused was arrested and it transpired that he suspected the deceased of having an extra-marital affair. The pillow used for smothering/strangulating the deceased was recovered at the instance of the accused. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant argues that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case, only for the reason that he is the husband of the deceased. It is argued that the FIR in this case was registered after three months and the case is based on circumstantial evidence. It is argued that there is nothing on record to connect the applicant with the alleged offence. Therefore, it is prayed that the applicant be released on regular bail. 4. The learned APP for the State, on the other hand, argues that the daughter of the deceased has made a statement under Section 183 of BNSS, wherein it has been categorically mentioned that the accused herein used to beat her mother (the deceased) mercilessly and, she had seen her mother crying for help as the accused was beating her. It is, therefore, prayed that the application for grant of regular bail be rejected. 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 10/09/2025 at 11:52:03

5. This Court has heard arguments addressed on behalf of the applicant as well as the State and has perused the material available on record. 6. After hearing arguments and going through the case file, this Court is of the opinion that as far as the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant, that FIR in this case was registered after delay of three months is concerned, this Court takes note of the fact that the learned Trial Court has mentioned in its order, vide which the bail application of the accused was rejected that the complaint in this case was lodged on the day of incident itself, however, it was a lapse on the part of the police that the FIR was not registered for three months and a detailed report in this regard had been called by the learned Trial Court. This Court also takes note of the fact that the phone call in this case was made immediately regarding the offence in question by the brother of the deceased after the incident. Therefore, there was no delay in making the complaint, and the delay caused in lodging the FIR has to be explained by the police before the learned Trial Court. 7. The statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS before the learned Magistrate of the daughter of the deceased, who is about 8 years of age, reveals that the accused used to quarrel with the deceased and used to beat her. She has mentioned that on one day, the accused had beaten the deceased and she had heard her mother crying from the room in which she was being beaten by the accused. She mentions that she had asked the accused to open the door of the room, however, he did not open the door and when the door was opene, her mother i.e. the deceased was lying on the floor and was bleeding having sustained injury on her head. Thereafter, the accused had also hanged her younger brother Ashad from the grill and told the deceased that in case she will go out of the house, he will throw the child from the 3rd 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 10/09/2025 at 11:52:03 floor. On the day of incident also, the accused had asked her and her brother to play outside their home and when they had come back, they had found that the deceased was lying on the floor, and there were injury marks on her face and there was a pillow beneath her head. There were also marks of fingers on her face and on her neck. 8. In the aforesaid context, this Court also takes note of the fact that the post-mortem of the deceased has opined the cause of death to be “Asphyxia due to combined effect of smothering and ligature strangulation”. 9. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the present case and the brutality with which the deceased was treated and murdered as prima facie evident from the material on record, no ground for grant of regular bail is made out. 10. Accordingly, the present application stands dismissed. 11. It is, however, clarified that nothing expressed herein above shall tantamount to an expression of opinion on merits of the case. 12. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J SEPTEMBER 09, 2025/zp