Mr.Jaiveer, Mr.Irshad and Mr.JatinDhakoliya, Advocates v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI

BAIL APPLN. 3844/2025 Page 1 of 7 $~53 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 3844/2025 ROOP KISHORE @ BHOLA .....Petitioner Through: Mr.Jaiveer, Mr.Irshad and Mr.JatinDhakoliya, Advocates versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for the State alongwith Insp. Neeraj Kumar, P.S.-Ambedkar Nagar CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA O R D E R % 09.10.2025 CRL.M.A. 29985-86/2025 (Exemptions) Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The applications stand disposed of. BAIL APPLN. 3844/2025 1. The applicant herein is before this Court seeking regular bail, having remained under incarceration for approximately 4 years 4 months, in a criminal case arising out of FIR No.383/2021 dated 02.06.2021 for alleged offences under Sections 34, 302 of IPC, registered at P.S. Ambedkar Nagar.Subsequently, Sections 25, 27 of Arms Act, 1959 were added in the charge-sheet. 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 13/10/2025 at 11:59:54 BAIL APPLN. 3844/2025 Page 2 of 7 2. Per FIR,prosecution/complainant’s (informer) case is that on 01.06.2021, at approximately 6:30 PM, the eyewitness/complainant Dushyant @ Dipanshu Pachauri, was standing outside his house when his friend Kunal (victim), aged 19 years, invited him to accompany him to purchase a cake for his father’s birthday. The complainant agreed, and they both left on the complainant’s Scooty. 2.1 After buying the cake, while returning, at approximately 8:30 PM, the accused, known to the complainant viz. Gaurav (co-accused no.2) and Sameer (co-accused) picked up a fight and obstructed their path.Gaurav forcibly pulled the victim off the Scooty, causing the complainant to lose balance and fall. Subsequently, Gaurav began stabbing the victim with a knife, while Sameer assaulted him with repeated kicks and punches. 2.2 At this juncture, two more accused persons, Sahil (co-accused no.1) and Roop Kishore @ Bhola (petitioner/accused), arrived at the scene with knives, inciting Gaurav to “finish him off.” Thereafter, the applicant and co-accused nos. 1 and 2 proceeded to stab the victim, while Sameer continued physically assaulting him. The attackers fled as bystanders began to gather at the scene. 2.3 The victim sustained knife wound to his neck and was bleeding profusely. In panic, the complainant informed victim’s brother, Ravi (PW3), who, along with a friend, Ankush, transported victim on the complainant’s Scooty to Max Hospital. Despite medical intervention, victim succumbed to his injuries. 3. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions and perused the case file. 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 13/10/2025 at 11:59:54 BAIL APPLN. 3844/2025 Page 3 of 7 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would inter alia argue on the lines of grounds pleaded in the petition as below: 4.1 That the applicant is a young person of only 23 years of age with no criminal history. That the applicant has been arrested in the present case without any incriminating evidence against him. He would contend that the complainant, in his chief examination, did not support the prosecution story and failed to identify the accused. PW-2, namely Ankush, during his deposition dated 18.08.2023 before the trial court, has also recanted his earlier testimony and not supported the prosecution case. 4.2 He argues that the petitioner had no role in the commission of thealleged offence. PW-1 initially turned hostile and, in his statement, admittedthat he did not see the petitioner armed or stabbing the victim. PW-1’sidentification of the petitioner in court was after cross-examination, raisingthe possibility of tutoring. Moreover, the dying declaration attributed to thevictim implicating the petitioner is contradicted by PW-2 and PW-3, whotransported the victim to the hospital and stated that nothing transpired en-route. The CCTV footage obtained from PW-7’s residence was not describedin the charge-sheet, and its genuineness has not been verified, with PW-7turning hostileregarding its functioning and FSL analysis. 4.3 That the alleged main accused-Nikhil Nagar, who purportedly conspired the entire story, has already been granted regular bail by the learned trial court vide order dated 18.11.2023. He would submit that this aspect has also been noted by this High Court in paragraph 6 of the bail order dated 14.08.2025 in respect of co-accused (Sahil), who allegedly stabbed the deceased before the present applicant reached the crime spot. Similarly, another co-accused (Shiv Kumar), was granted bail by the learned 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 13/10/2025 at 11:59:54 BAIL APPLN. 3844/2025 Page 4 of 7 trial court vide order dated 31.05.2023. He would thus contend that 3 out of 5 co-accused persons have been granted bail and therefore, the applicant herein deserves a similar concession on ground of parity. 4.4 That no public witness remains against the applicant, and therefore, there is no apprehension of influencing witnesses or hampering the evidence. He would urge that the applicant is innocent and a victim of circumstances and the applicant has no involvement whatsoever in the alleged offence, and the allegations against him are wholly false and frivolous. That out of approximately 24 prosecution witnesses, only 17 have been examined so far despite the charge sheet having been filed long back, clearly indicating that the trial will take considerable time to conclude. There is no likelihood of the applicant fleeing from justice or threatening witnesses if granted regular bail. 4.5 That the applicant has already undergone judicial custody for more than four years as an undertrial. Learned counsel would further submit that the investigation concerning the applicant is complete, custodial interrogation is no longer required, and he has not misused the liberty granted during the period of interim bail. That continuing to curtail his liberty will serve no fruitful purpose. The object of incarceration is merely to secure the presence of the accused at trial; it is neither punitive nor preventive, and deprivation of liberty amounts to punishment without a conviction. 4.6 That the applicant moved a regular bail application before the learned trial court, which was dismissed by Ld. ASJ-02 (South), Saket Courts, Delhi, vide order dated 10.09.2025, appended as Annexure A. That the applicant is a reputed individual with deep roots in society, and his 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 13/10/2025 at 11:59:54 BAIL APPLN. 3844/2025 Page 5 of 7 prolonged incarceration among hardened criminals would ruin his standing. Learned counsel would urge that the applicant belongs to a respectable family, has no previous convictions, and there is no chance of absconding or tampering with evidence. 5. Opposing the above submissions, the learned APP for the State argues that the same is sans merit and there remains a genuine risk of the applicant absconding and influencing or intimidating the victim if granted the concession of bail. He thus submits that the instant application deserves to be dismissed. 6. Having heard, for the reasons noted here after, I am of the view it is a case for bail. 7. It transpires that as per the statement of PW-3, the mastermind of the entire crime in question was one Mr. Nikhil Nagar, who has been accorded the concession of bail vide order dated 18.11.2023, that apart another co-accused, namely, Shiv Kumar has also been accorded bail meted out with similar treatment vide another dated 31.10.2023, both orders being passed by learned ASJ, Saket Courts, New Delhi. Moreover, co-accused no.1 (Sahil) has also been granted concession of bail by this Court vide order dated 14.08.2025. 8. Prima facie, the role of the applicant herein is the same as that attributed to co-accused Sahil, and although the learned counsel submits that he stands on a much lesser footing. Be that as it may, assuming he is on the same footing, I am of the view that, on grounds of parity as well, the applicant is deserving of bail at this stage. 9. Aside above, the star prosecution witness PW1, stated to be an eye witness, has also not supported the version of the prosecution. He has 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 13/10/2025 at 11:59:54 BAIL APPLN. 3844/2025 Page 6 of 7 givenevasive answers viz when the incident was taking place he did see some of the boys physically assaulting the deceased, but he cannot identify them. He also now states that he abandoned his scooter and ran away from the scene of occurrence. 10. Adverting further, no recovery was made from the applicant, whereas the knife was recovered from co-accused Shiv Kumar @ Babloo, who is on bail; similarly, co-accused Nikhil Nagar, has also been granted bail. PW1 initially turned hostile, admitting he never saw the petitioner armed or stabbing the victim. The dying declaration is contradicted by PW2 and PW3, while the CCTV footage remains unverified and disowned by PW7. 11. Be that as it may, their testimonies are also a matter of trial and at this stage, I have already observed it is a case for bail. 12. The applicant has statedly remained in custody since 03.06.2021, i.e. for approximately 4 years and 4 months. The investigation is over qua him as the charge sheet has been filed on 02.06.2021, he is thus not required for any custodial investigation. 13. Moreover, as it is stated, out of the 24 prosecution witnesses, only 17 have been examined so far, and given the snail’s pace, further continued incarceration would cause undue hardship to the applicant’s family and serve no useful purpose, especially when the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future as it violates the fundamental rule i.e. bail is the rule and jail an exception. 14. The applicant is statedly about 23 years of age, in the prime of his youth, with his career ahead of him, residing with his family, and having deep roots in society, and thus poses no flight risk. As regards any apprehension of influencing or intimidating witnesses, absconding, or 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 13/10/2025 at 11:59:54 BAIL APPLN. 3844/2025 Page 7 of 7 tampering with evidence, there is nothing on record to support the samegiven that the material evidence has been seized, rendering such apprehension illusory. One of the primary objects of bail is to secure the presence of the accused during trial. The applicant statedly has clean antecedentsand thus, his continued detention may amount to punishment before conviction, at this stage. 15. As an upshot and taking a wholesome view of the matter i.e. key witnessthe complainant, has turned hostile, and the three co-accused have already been granted bail, further detention serves no purpose. 16. Accordingly, the applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond with solvent surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Judge concerned as the case may be, subject to the other usual conditions to be imposed by the learned Trial Court/Duty Court. 17. Any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of disposing of the instant bail application and not to be construed, in any manner, as any expression on the merits of the pending case and the trialshall proceed without being influenced either way by the same. 18. Accordingly, the bail application stands disposed of. ARUN MONGA, J OCTOBER 9, 2025/dy