Mr. Suraj Prakash Sharma and Mr. Mayank Chauhan, Advs v. THE STATE

$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ BAIL APPLN. 3598/2025 IBRAHIM .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Suraj Prakash Sharma and Mr. Mayank Chauhan, Advs. versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for the State. CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA O R D E R% 27.10.2025 1.By way of the present application, the applicant seeks the grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR bearing no. 0929/2024 registered at PS Narela Industrial Area, Delhi, for offences punishable Under Sections 109(1)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereafter, BNS). 2.Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that on 10.10.2024, an information was received regarding a stabbing incident at JJ Colony, Bawana, Delhi. The injured, Jahangir, was found under treatment at MV Hospital, Pooth Khurd, and was later referred to BSA Hospital, Rohini, for further medical care. It is alleged that on the said date, while the complainant was present near Foota Road, E-Block, JJ Colony, Bawana, the co-accused Yusuf had arrived there along with his brother Ibrahim, the present applicant, and one unidentified associate. As alleged, all three had 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 30/10/2025 at 12:07:06 begun abusing the complainant over an old quarrel. When he objected to their behaviour, Yusuf had accused him and his friends of having previously attacked him and threatened that he would not be spared that day. Thereafter, it is alleged that the applicant and the unidentified person had caught hold of the complainant, while Yusuf took had taken out a knife from his pants pocket and stabbed him in the abdomen, twice, during which the knife handle had broken and the blade had remained embedded in the complainant’s stomach, whereafter the three accused person had fled from the spot. Eventually, the complainant’s friend Dilshad, seeing him injured, had referred him for medical care and the present FIR was subsequently registered against the present applicant. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the applicant argues that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case, having been implicated falsely in response to a case arising out of FIR bearing no. 865/2023, essentially in nature of a cross-FIR to the present FIR, lodged on his behalf against the complainant and his associates for having stabbed the co-accused Yusuf, in which course the present applicant had also sustained injuries. It is argued that the accused persons in the said FIR already have been granted bail. Further, it is contended that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 11.10.2024 and the investigation stands completed in all respects. Therefore, it is prayed that the present application be allowed. 4.The learned APP appearing for the State, on the other hand, opposes the bail application and argues that the allegations against the present applicant are serious in nature. It is argued that the applicant had caught hold of the complainant Jahangir while the co-accused, Yusuf, his brother, was stabbing the complainant, leading to severe injuries to the complainant 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 30/10/2025 at 12:07:06 which are ‘grievous’ in nature. Further, it is contended that the present case is not in pursuance of a cross-FIR on behalf of the applicant, as alleged, as the said FIR relates back to a year prior to the present incident. Therefore, it is prayed that the present application be rejected. 5.This court has heard arguments addressed on behalf of the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP appearing for the State and has perused the material on record. 6.After hearing arguments and going through the case file, this Court is of the opinion that it remains admitted that the parties in the present case are known to each other and that in pursuance of an alleged old enmity amongst them, the present applicant, on 10.10.2024, along with co-accused persons, had abused the complainant Jahangir and while he was holding the complainant tightly, the co-accused Yusuf had taken out a knife and stabbed the complainant twice, whereafter they had fled from the spot. 7.This Court notes that a year prior to the alleged incident, an FIR bearing no. 865/2023 was lodged against the complainant and his associates for having allegedly stabbed the co-accused Yusuf whereby the present applicant had also sustained injuries. Notably, the accused persons of the said FIR have been granted bail. Additionally, the applicant has been in judicial custody since 11.10.2024 in the instant case and the investigation in the case stands completed. 8.Thus, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and considering the period of custody undergone by the applicant, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the applicant herein, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Successor Court/Link 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 30/10/2025 at 12:07:06 Court/Duty Judge concerned on the following terms and conditions: i) The applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the concerned Court and if the applicant has a passport, he shall surrender the same to the concerned trial court. ii) In case of change of residential address/contact details, the applicant shall promptly inform the same to the concerned Court and IO/SHO concerned. iii) The applicant shall appear regularly before the learned Trial Court, unless exempted. iv) The applicant shall not communicate with, or come into contact with the complainant or any of the prosecution witnesses, or tamper with the evidence of the case. 9.Accordingly, the present bail application stands allowed and is disposed of. 10.It is, however, clarified that nothing expressed hereinabove shall tantamount to an expression of opinion on merits of the case. 11.The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J OCTOBER 27, 2025/VS