Mr. Nitin Saluja, Adv. (DHCLSC), Mr. Karan Singh and Mr. Nischal Tripathi, Advs v. STATE

BAIL APPLN. 2593/2025 Page 1 of 8 $~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ BAIL APPLN. 2593/2025 & CRL.M.A. 20232/2025 MOHD. MOHSIN QURESHI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Nitin Saluja, Adv. (DHCLSC), Mr. Karan Singh and Mr. Nischal Tripathi, Advs. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Ms. Richa Dhawan, APP for the State Insp. Ichha Ram, PS Daryaganj. Insp. Raj Kumar, PS Jagat Puri. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJANO R D E R% 02.09.2025 1.The present application is filed seeking regular bail in FIR No. 212/2019 dated 08.10.2019, registered at Police Station Daryaganj for the offences under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959. 2.Briefly stated on 06.10.2019, a PCR call was received by the police regarding a man who had received stab injuries, whereafter, the victim was taken to Lok Narayan Jay Prakash Hospital and after examination was declared brought dead. 3.Thereafter, the body of the deceased was preserved in the mortuary of Maulana Azad Medical College for identification. It is alleged that on 07.10.2019, one person named Raju identified the deceased as Mohd. Navi and the same was later confirmed by 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 03/09/2025 at 11:53:03 BAIL APPLN. 2593/2025 Page 2 of 8 the elder brother of the deceased namely Mohd. Abrar. 4.It is alleged that the post mortem of the deceased revealed that he had received several stab injuries on his neck, chest and back as well as there was a gunshot injury on the left side of the chest of the deceased, pursuant to which the police registered the present FIR. 5.It is alleged that during the course of investigation, statement of Raju was recorded who stated that on 05.10.2019 he had seen deceased with the applicant. He stated that initially the deceased and the applicant were sitting together and later started fighting with each other. He further stated that when he tried to intervene, both the deceased and the applicant chased him away stating that it was their personal matter. 6.It is alleged that during investigation it was found that the applicant was a resident of Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh, whereafter, a raid was conducted at the house of the applicant, who had allegedly fled away from there after he got information regarding the police raid. 7.It is alleged that, thereafter, enquiry was made regarding the applicant from his landlord who stated that the applicant lives on rent with his mother and sister. He stated that the deceased was the brother-in-law of the applicant. He stated that on 05.10.2019 the applicant had gone to Delhi with the deceased. He stated that the applicant returned alone the next day, whereafter, when he saw the applicant limping, he asked as to what happened to which the applicant replied that he had met with an accident. He further stated that the applicant had left 10-15 minutes prior to the police arriving at the house of the applicant. 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 03/09/2025 at 11:53:03 BAIL APPLN. 2593/2025 Page 3 of 8 8.It is alleged that during the course of investigation it was found that the applicant had been previously arrested in a murder case in Bhopal and was released on parole, whereafter, he allegedly jumped parole. 9.It is alleged that thereafter the search of the applicant was conducted, however, he was not traceable. It is alleged that he had been absconding in different parts of the country and was arrested on 04.06.2020 from Khatauli, Uttar Pradesh on the basis of secret information. 10.The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. 11.He submits that the applicant was arrested on 04.06.2020 and has been in custody for more than 5 years. He submits that out of the 27 witnesses citied by the prosecution only 3 have been examined till date and the trial is not likely to finish any time soon. 12.He further submits that the all witnesses examined in the present case have turned hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution. 13.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state vehemently opposes the grant of any relief to the present applicant. 14.She submits that the applicant is a habitual offender. She submits that the applicant had been convicted in case arising from FIR No. 21/2013 under Section 302 of the IPC. She further submits that the applicant has one more case pending against him. 15.She consequently prays that the present application be 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 03/09/2025 at 11:53:03 BAIL APPLN. 2593/2025 Page 4 of 8 dismissed. 16.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 17.It is settled law that the Court, while considering the application for grant of bail, has to keep certain factors in mind, such as, whether there is a prima facie case or reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed the offence; the nature and gravity of the accusation; severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; the danger of the accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail; reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being threatened; etc. However, at the same time, the long period of incarceration is also a relevant factor that is to be considered. 18.The allegations against the applicant in the present case are grave and heinous in nature. It is the prosecution’s case that the applicant brutally murdered his brother-in-law. The case is tethered on the last seen theory and it is alleged that the deceased was last seen with the applicant by Raju. 19.It is not disputed that the applicant was arrested in the present case at the instance of Raju and the entire case is based on the last seen theory. 20.It is pertinent to note that in the present case all the witnesses examined during the course of trial have turned hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution. 21.It is settled law that when the case is based solely on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances has to be so complete that it leaves no reasonable ground for any other conclusion except for the hypothesis of guilt of the accused person. 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 03/09/2025 at 11:53:03 BAIL APPLN. 2593/2025 Page 5 of 8 22.While the probative value of the evidence and veracity of the evidence would be considered at the time of final argument, it is settled law that in the event of there being even some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to bail [Ref: Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh:(2002) 3 SCC 598]. 23.The investigation in the present case already stands concluded. The applicant was arrested on 04.06.2020 and has spent more than 5 years in custody. The trial is at the stage of examination of prosecution witnesses and out of the 27 witnesses citied by the prosecution only 3 have been examined till date. The applicant cannot be made to spend the entire period of trial in custody especially when the trial is likely to take considerable time. In the opinion of this Court, no purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in further custody. 24.The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb:AIR 2021 SC 712 held that once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible, and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, the courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail. 25.While it cannot be denied that the offence alleged against the applicant is heinous in nature, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra :2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693has observed as under: “19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime. 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 03/09/2025 at 11:53:03 BAIL APPLN. 2593/2025 Page 6 of 8 20. We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent the penal law may be.” 26.It is contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State that the antecedents of the applicant does not entitle him for bail since he had been convicted in case arising from FIR No. 21/2013 under Section 302 of the IPC and has one more case pending against him being FIR No. 413/2011 under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 registered at Police Station Khatauli, Uttar Pradesh. 27.While it is true that the applicant is embroiled in multiple criminal cases, the same by itself, cannot be the basis to refuse the prayer of bail and a holistic view of the facts has to be taken by the Court while considering the question grant of bail. [Ref Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P and Anr. : (2020) 11 SCC 648]. 28.As noted above, the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and the applicant has already spent more than 5 years in custody. 29.The object of jail is to secure the appearance of the accused during the trial. The object is neither punitive nor preventive and the deprivation of liberty has been considered as a punishment. However, appropriate conditions ought to be put to allay the apprehension of the applicant tampering with the evidence or evading the trial. 30.Considering the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has established a prima facie case for the grant of bail. 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 03/09/2025 at 11:53:03 BAIL APPLN. 2593/2025 Page 7 of 8 31.In view of the above, the applicant is directed to be released on bail (if not in custody in any other case) son furnishing a personal bond for a sum of ₹25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, on the following conditions: a.The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with the evidence of the case, in any manner whatsoever; b.The applicant shall under no circumstance leave the boundaries of the country without the permission of the learned Trial Court; c.The applicant shall appear before the learned Trial Court as and when directed; d.The applicant shall provide the address where he would be residing after his release and shall not change the address without informing the concerned IO/ SHO; e.The applicant shall, upon his release, give his mobile number to the concerned IO/SHO and shall keep his mobile phones switched on at all times. 27.In the event of there being any FIR/ DD entry/ complaint lodged against the applicant, it would be open to the State to seek redressal by filing an application seeking cancellation of bail. 28.It is clarified that the observations made in the present order are only for the purpose of deciding the present bail application and shall not influence the outcome of the trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 29.The bail application is allowed in the aforementioned 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 03/09/2025 at 11:53:03 BAIL APPLN. 2593/2025 Page 8 of 8 terms. 30.Pending application also stands disposed of. AMIT MAHAJAN, JSEPTEMBER 2, 2025 “rb”