Delhi High Court · 2025

BAIL APPLN. 3367/2025 Page 1 of 5 $~104 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 3367/2025 and CRL.M.A. 26270/2025 & CRL.M.A. 26271/2025 DEEPAK .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Abhinav Rathi, Mr. Suraj Goliyan, Mr. Harshit Tyagi and Mr.Manvendra Singh, Advocates. versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for the State with SI Ved Prakash, PS – Jaitpur. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA O R D E R % 03.09.2025 1. Applicant seeks anticipatory bail owing to his apprehension of arrest arising out of FIR No.411/2025 dated 18.07.2025, for the alleged offences under Sections 3(5), 115, 126, 333 of BNS, registered at Police Station Jaitpur, Delhi. 2. Per FIR, on 18.07.2025, the complainant, Indresh Kumar Vishwakarma, working as a carpenter was allegedly assaulted by Renu Sharma, her husband Balram @ Bablu, her sister Sangeeta, the applicant (Sangeeta’s husband), auto driver Ved Prakash, and her father Joginder Sharma. It is alleged that the accused persons forcibly entered complainant’s/victim house, dragged him outside, and collectively assaulted him. 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 15/09/2025 at 12:20:56 BAIL APPLN. 3367/2025 Page 2 of 5 2.1 The victim was thereafter moved to Safdarjung Hospital, where MLC dated 18.07.2025 recorded abrasions on his face, deformity of the left upper and lower limbs, and pain in the same regions. His statement was recorded at the hospital, wherein he named the aforesaid assailants. Consequently, the FIR in question was registered and investigation ensued. 3. Heard and perused the case file. 4. The applicant claims false implication in the FIR and asserts he never committed the alleged offence. 5. Learned counsel for applicant argues that the learned ASJ Court ignored the Supreme Court ruling in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014), which cautions against unnecessary arrests, directs compliance with Section 41 Cr.P.C., and requires the issuance of notices under Section 41A Cr.P.C. instead of automatic arrests. It is further contended that the ASJ Court failed to consider the nature of the alleged offences in the FIR. Since bailable and less serious offences are involved, the guidelines of Arnesh Kumar apply, protecting the applicant from needless arrest. 5.1. Reliance is also placed on Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980), where the Supreme Court held that anticipatory bail must be decided on case-specific facts and not on mechanical grounds. Counsel argues that non-recovery of the alleged weapon alone cannot justify denial of anticipatory bail. 6. Opposing the bail plea, learned APP for the State argues that the instant application is sans merit and that the applicant is not entitled to any relief at this stage, as there remains a genuine risk of him absconding and tampering with the evidence. He would thus submit that the present application deserves to be dismissed. 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 15/09/2025 at 12:20:56 BAIL APPLN. 3367/2025 Page 3 of 5 7. A status report has been filed in course o hearing, the same be taken on record. 8. My attention has been drawn certain paragraphs of the aforesaid status report. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced herein below for ease of reference:- “7. Medical Opinion: Multiple fractures: both legs and left upper arm. Dr has opined injury as "GREVIOUS." Operated for leg fractures and arm. (Copy of medical opinion enclosed). During investigation, section 117(2) BNS added. Treating Dr. has stated that patient has sustained fractures on both legs. Besides this there is fracture on shaft of humerus (Upper Arm). Pt has been operated for both bones of the legs and upper arm is still to be operated. Nature of injury is stated as GREVIOUS. (Copy of Treating Dr's. opinion enclosed). During investigation section 117 (2) BNS has been added in the case. 14. Role of Accused Deepak: Applicant/ accused is named as prime assailant. He has been specifically alleged to have inflicted grievous injuries with a danda. He has dumped the complainant in front of police station and later on along with the co accused threw him inside the police station. Medical opinion confirms the injuries. 15. Previous Involvement:- As per available SCRB records, the applicant/ accused does not have any previous involvement. 16. Applicant/ accused has confessed to assault using danda. The accused has joined investigation on 29/07/2025 but has not cooperated in the investigation. Weapon (danda) has not been got recovered. 17. It is submitted that anticipatory bail of applicant/ accused was dismissed vide order dated 02/08/2025. Complainant is bed ridden after multiples surgeries and residing at the same locality where, applicant/ accused Deepak, along with Renu, Sangeeta, Devender Kumar, Ved Prakash, and Deepak, trespassed into his home and did brutality with him. Being closely related to co-accused Ms. Renu, the applicant/accused may influence, threaten or induce the complainant or other witnesses. In view 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 15/09/2025 at 12:20:56 BAIL APPLN. 3367/2025 Page 4 of 5 of the above, it is prayed that bail of applicant/ accused may be dismissed.” 9. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions and have perused the case file. 10. Prior to the instant application, bail of the applicant was rejected by the learned ASJ, Saket Courts, Delhi vide an order dated 02.08.2025 in Bail Matter 2037/2025 which is, inter alia, premised on the reasoning that the complainant was injured in gruesome manner due to which he received three factures and that the weapon of offence i.e. Danda and the Auto in which injured was dumped in front of the PS by the accused persons is to be recovered and thus the custodial interrogation of the accused is required. 11. In light of the status report, ibid, not only I concur with the reasons recorded by the learned Sessions Court vide order dated 02.08.2025 nut even otherwise, the role attributed to the applicant herein is same as that of the co-accused, who also filed BAIL APPL. 3326/2025 seeking anticipatory bail which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 01.09.2025. 12. The complainant sustained multiple fractures in both legs and the left upper arm. He has undergone surgeries for the leg fractures, while the upper arm fracture is still pending surgery. The treating doctor has declared the injuries grievous, and during investigation Section 117(2) BNS was also added. 13. The applicant Deepak is stated to be as the prime assailant, specifically alleged to have inflicted grievous injuries with a danda. He dumped the complainant outside a police station and, along with co-accused, pushed him inside. Medical opinion corroborates the injuries. The victim remains bedridden after multiple surgeries and resides in the same locality 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 15/09/2025 at 12:20:56 BAIL APPLN. 3367/2025 Page 5 of 5 where the applicant and co-accused trespassed and assaulted him. 14. The possibility that the applicant may intimidate or otherwise influence the victim or other witnesses cannot be ruled out if granted any concession. 15. At this stage, no opinion can be formed in favour of the applicant. 16. In view of the aforesaid, I see no grounds to interfere. 17. Accordingly, the instant bail application, along with pending application(s), if any, is hereby dismissed. ARUN MONGA, J SEPTEMBER 3, 2025/kd