Mr. Sahil Malik, Mr. Aditya Jain, Mr. Abhishek, Mr. Kanav Gupta, Mr. Sahil Lakra v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. Through

the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 20231 in respect of FIR No. 0223/2024 under Sections 109(1), 221, 132, 121, 61(1)(a) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 20232, registered at P.S. I.P. Estate, Delhi.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is as follows:

2.1 On the statement of Constable Ramdas (Complainant) of P.S. IP Estate, Delhi, the aforenoted FIR No. 0223/2024 was registered against four accused persons including the Applicant. The Complainant stated that on 1 “BNSS” 2 “BNS” BAIL APPLN. 4665/2024 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 01/02/2025 at 10:26:18 14th July, 2024, after receiving DD No. 34, he left on his official bike for picket duty. At around 10:30 PM, Sujeet, the Pradhan of Valmiki Basti, called the Complainant and informed him that a group of individuals were seen near the public toilet at Valmiki Basti Chowk, drinking alcohol and smoking bidis.

2.2 Upon reaching the location on his bike, the Complainant saw several individuals drinking alcohol and smoking bidis. He instructed them to stop, cautioning them that public consumption of alcohol is a punishable offence. The group, however, responded with hostility, expressing their resentment and vowing retaliation before dispersing from the area.

2.3 The Complainant later identified the individuals as (i) Rohit, (ii) Manthan @ Monu (Applicant herein), (iii) Amjad, (iv) Ashish and (v) Virender Thapa @ Raju. All of these boys are residents of the Valmiki Basti, except for Virender Thapa @ Raju, who is a resident of Kotla.

2.4. Shortly after the initial encounter, the accused persons conspired to attack the Complainant. As he was preparing to leave on his bike, accused Rohit struck him on the face and head with a wooden stick with the intention to kill him. Rohit repeatedly struck the Complainant’s face and head with the stick, while all the other co-accused, including the Applicant, shouted that the Complainant should not be allowed to live. The force of the assault caused the Complainant to fall from his bike, losing consciousness. Bystanders at the scene immediately alerted the police, and the Complainant was taken to a hospital for medical treatment.

2.5. Subsequently, during the investigation, CCTV footage from the area was recovered and analysed. The footage confirms involvement of all the aforementioned five accused persons. It captures Rohit brutally attacking BAIL APPLN. 4665/2024 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 01/02/2025 at 10:26:18 the Complainant with a stick and thereafter, all the accused fleeing from the scene of crime. All the accused persons jointly and in a pre-planned manner intentionally conspired to kill the Complainant in retaliation for being stopped from consuming alcohol in a public place. Pursuant to this plan, they attacked him with a stick before fleeing the scene.

2.6. On 15th July, 2024, accused persons – Manthan @ Monu (Applicant herein), Amjad, Ashish and Virender Thapa @ Raju were arrested and sent to Judicial Custody. Rohit evaded arrest and remained absconding despite multiple raids at his residence. Eventually, after this Court dismissed his anticipatory bail application, Rohit surrendered before the Court on 30th July, 2024. It is also relevant to note that the bail applications of two other co-accused, Ashish and Virender Thapa @ Raju, were dismissed by this Court.

3. Rebutting the case of the prosecution, counsel for Applicant argues that the FIR does not attribute any specific role to the Applicant herein – i.e., Manthan @ Monu. It is urged that the Applicant is a young man of 25 years, who has been in custody since 15th July, 2024, following his arrest. Pertinently, while the Applicant does not dispute his presence at the scene, Counsel for the Applicant emphasizes that the principal act of assault was committed solely by co-accused Rohit, who allegedly struck the Complainant with a stick. The prosecution’s case against the Applicant rests on the allegation that he incited Rohit to attack the Complainant. Counsel further argues that although the prosecution contends that the Applicant was intoxicated at the time of the incident, no medical evidence has been placed on record to support this claim. Moreover, while the Complainant alleged that he was struck with a stick (danda), the injury noted in the MLC is BAIL APPLN. 4665/2024 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 01/02/2025 at 10:26:18 classified as ‘simple in nature.’ Additionally, there has been no recovery of any weapon at the instance of the Applicant. Since the investigation in the present case is complete and the chargesheet has already been filed, no purpose will be served by keeping the Applicant in custody any longer. Lastly, counsel assures this Court that if released on bail, the Applicant will abide by all conditions imposed and undertakes not to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State, strongly opposes the present bail application. He points out that the CCTV footage recovered during investigation, clearly captures the sequence of events depicting accused Rohit brutally attacking the Complainant with a stick. The footage also shows Rohit along with the other accused persons fleeing from the scene of crime. Mr. Kumar contends that the CCTV footage establishes not only the assault but also the preceding events, wherein the Applicant can be seen consuming alcohol alongside the other accused. He asserts that the Applicant acted in furtherance of a common intention with Rohit, thereby making him equally liable for the attack on a police officer performing his official duty. The victim in the present case is a police officer who was discharging his duty in response to a complaint regarding public intoxication. Granting bail in such cases, Mr. Kumar submits, would have grave implications on the morale of law enforcement officers, who put their lives at risk daily to uphold law and order. Permitting individuals who have conspired to attack a police officer in such a brazen and premeditated manner to be released on bail would not only undermine the authority of the police but also send a disturbing signal to society.

5. The Court has considered the contentions of the parties. The Court has BAIL APPLN. 4665/2024 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 01/02/2025 at 10:26:18 also examined the material on record, including the MLC of Complainant as well as the CCTV footage of the incident. The MLC records the injury suffered by the Complainant as simple in nature. However, the CCTV footage, prima facie, depicts a brutal assault on the Constable Ramdas, by an assailant wielding a stick. The prosecution has specifically identified this assailant as co-accused Rohit, and not the Applicant. While this Court does not, in any manner, condone acts of violence against law enforcement officers, it is also mindful that the allegation against the present Applicant is limited to his alleged common intention in furtherance of the assault. Whether the Applicant shared such common intention or played an active role in abetting the attack is a matter that must be tested during trial. Similarly, while the prosecution contends that the Applicant was intoxicated at the time of the incident, no MLC has been placed on record to substantiate this claim. In the absence of such material, this Court is not inclined to give undue weight to the prosecution’s assertion regarding alcohol consumption in a public place.

6. The Supreme Court, in several judgments, has held that the bail is not to be treated as a punitive or preventive measure but rather as a means to secure the presence of the accused at trial. The purpose of pre-trial detention is not to inflict punishment before guilt is established3. As per the nominal roll, the Applicant has been in custody since 15th July, 2024 and has undergone 6 months as an under-trial as of 21st January, 2025. With the chargesheet already filed, the continued incarceration of the Applicant, would serve no purpose.