Mr. Chetan and Ms. Deepika, Advocates v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

Judgment

1. The present application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) read with Section 483 of the Bhartiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking grant of regular bail in FIR No. 311/2022 dated 04.08.2022 registered at Police Station (P.S.) Tigri for offence under Section 393/394/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 2. The charge-sheet in the subject FIR has been filed under Sections 326/392/395/397/34 IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959. Brief Facts 3. It is the case of the prosecution in the status report that the one Avdesh Kumar i.e., the complainant/victim, lodged a complaint and informed the police officials that on the intervening night of 03.08.2022 and 04.08.2022, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MAHIMA SHARMA Signing Date:01.03.2025 16:49:17 BAIL APPLN. 4661/2024 Page 1 of 9 when the complainant/victim was going back home on his motorcycle, he was attacked by three (3) boys (hereinafter referred to as ‘accused’) with a knife. It is stated that after the incident, the complainant/victim was taken to AIIMS Trauma Centre Hospital and subsequently, the subject FIR was filed. 3.1. It is stated that during the investigation, the CCTV footage of the crime scene was checked and the search for the accused persons began on

05.08.2022. It is stated that during the search operation, accused-Ashish1 was caught and upon his body search, a country-made pistol was recovered from his belly pocket and a knife was found near the back waist. It is stated that after interrogation, co-accused-Ashish was arrested. It is stated that co- accused Roshan2 and Rohit3 were also arrested on 05.08.2022 and co- accused Aman4 was arrested on 06.08.2022. 3.2. It is stated that charge-sheet against accused persons i.e., Ashish, Aman, Roshan and Rohit was filed. 3.3. It is stated that a supplementary charge-sheet has been filed against the Applicant. 3.4. It is stated that on basis of secret information dated 03.12.2022, Applicant/Ajay5 was arrested and during investigation it was revealed that the Applicant was also involved in the crime. 4. It is stated in the charge-sheet that during the investigation, one of the accused person disclosed that accused persons i.e. Ashish, Applicant/Ajay, Aman, Roshan, Rohit, Sohil and two (2) friends of Sohil made a plan to commit robbery; and on the intervening night of 03.08.2022 and 04.08.2022, 1 Alias Kalu 2 Alias Gautam 3 Alias Chota 4 Alias Bhatija Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MAHIMA SHARMA Signing Date:01.03.2025 16:49:17 BAIL APPLN. 4661/2024 Page 2 of 9 the accused persons stopped the complainant/victim; thereafter one of the accused person showed a country made pistol to the complainant/victim, robbed his money and caused grievous injury on the body of the complainant/victim. Arguments on behalf of the Applicant 5. Learned counsel for the Applicant states that the Applicant was arrested on 03.12.2022 and as on 02.01.2025 as per the Nominal Roll6, the Applicant has already undergone a period of 2 Years and 29 days in the judicial custody. He states that no recovery has been affected from the Applicant, which connects the Applicant with the murder of the deceased. 5.1. He states that no role has been assigned to the present Applicant and the Applicant has not done anything in the offence committed. 5.2. He states that the material witness PW-1 i.e., the complainant/victim in the present case has already been examined before the Trial Court and PW-1’s testimony dated 13.11.2024 does not supports the case of the prosecution. He stated that PW-1 has not identified the Applicant before the Trial Court. 5.3. He states that as per the testimony of PW-1 only three (3) people were involved in the commission of the crime, whereas, as per prosecution’s case allegedly 10-15 people were involved. He states that the alleged other eye witness Mr. Narendra who has been examined as PW-3 has also not supported the case of the prosecution and has failed to identify the Applicant herein. He states that the CCTV footage relied upon by the prosecution also 5 Alias Rehtal 6 Dated 03.01.2025 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MAHIMA SHARMA Signing Date:01.03.2025 16:49:17 BAIL APPLN. 4661/2024 Page 3 of 9 does not prove any culpability of the Applicant herein as he is not seen in the said footage. He states that the Applicant has been falsely implicated. 5.4. He states that the investigation has already been completed and charge-sheet has been filed before the Trial Court, the material public witnesses have been examined and thus, there is no requirement for the continuing judicial custody of the Applicant pending the Trial. 5.5. He states that during the last one year, conduct of the Applicant in the judicial custody has been good. 5.6. He states in view of the aforesaid, this Court may be pleased to grant regular bail to the Applicant in the subject FIR. Arguments on behalf of the State 6. In reply, the learned APP states that the allegations against the Applicant/accused are with respect to Sections 326/392/395/397/34 IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959. She states that the Applicant/accused along with other co-accused assaulted the complainant/victim with the intention of robbery and one of the co-accused showed a pistol to the complainant/victim while other co-accused stabbed the complainant/victim. 6.1. She states that the CCTV footage of the alleged incident is available. She however fairly admits that PW-1 and PW-3 have not supported the case of the prosecution and they have turned hostile. 6.2. She states that the crime committed by the Applicant/accused is serious in nature and the Applicant/accused is likely to threaten/cause harm to public witness. Thus, the present bail application be dismissed by this Court. Analysis and conclusion Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MAHIMA SHARMA Signing Date:01.03.2025 16:49:17 BAIL APPLN. 4661/2024 Page 4 of 9

7. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Before adverting to the analysis of the facts of the present case, it would be apposite to refer to the factors which are to be taken into consideration for granting bail to an accused, similarly placed to the Applicant herein and in the peculiar facts of the present case. 9. The Supreme Court in the case of Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee7, State of Uttar Pradesh v. Amarmani Tripathi8, and Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh9 has set out the conditions to be considered by Court while granting bail, which are summarized as under: - (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behavior, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of justice being thwarted by the grant of bail.

10. In the facts of the present case, it is the prosecution’s case that during the investigation on basis of the disclosure statement of one of the co- accused, it has been revealed that more than seven (7) persons including the