Mr. Ashutosh Bhardwaj, Mr. Sanju Gupta, Mr. Lalit Kumar Sharma, Mr. Deepanshu Lakra and v. STATE

Judgment

1. This present bail application has been filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking regular bail in FIR No. 70/2020 registered at Police Station (P.S.) Ranhola, Delhi for offences under Sections 302/120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (‘Arms Act’) Brief Facts 2. The case of the prosecution as borne out from the status report is that on 27.01.2020, on receipt of a DD No. 08A at P.S Ranhola, the police arrived at Balaji Action Hospital, Paschim Vihar, Delhi wherein the victim named Sahil Lakra (deceased) was found under treatment and the doctor in the MLC bearing no. 8839/2020 mentioned that gun-shot injury has been caused to victim-Sahil Lakra at 12:20 AM in a white Santro (car). Signature Not Verified Signed By:HEMANT PRATAP SINGH Signing Date:16.02.2025 20:27:45 BAIL APPLN. 4716/2024

2.1. It is further stated that the statement of the eye-witness, namely, Sachin Narwal was recorded wherein he stated that on 26.01.2020 at about 10:30 PM he along with his friends namely Vishal Lakra, Sahil Lakra (deceased), Shrey Lakra, Deepak Lakra, Jatin Lakra and Deepak were sitting

in the Sahil Lakra's father office. It is stated during the said time, firstly co- accused named Saurabh Khatri came there, sat for a while and took off, after which the Applicant/Deepanshu (accused) came there and asked for Saurabh Khatri. It is stated that thereafter, when Sachin Narwal along with Sahil Lakra (deceased) and Applicant-Deepanshu were going in a Santo Car, the Applicant-Deepanshu as well sat on the back seat of the car. Sachin Narwal was driving the car and Sahil Lakra (deceased) was sitting on the passenger seat in the front of the Car. 2.2. It is stated that while Sachin Narwal was driving and when they reached near Shiv mandir, an altercation occurred between Sahil Lakra (deceased) Applicant/Deepanshu. And, thereafter Applicant/Deepanshu shot Sahil Lakra's point blank on the head (deceased) with a pistol. 2.3. It is stated that Sahil Lakra was taken to the hospital. In these circumstances, FIR was registered under Section 307 of IPC. It is stated that, while receiving the treatment Sahil Lakra (deceased) was referred to RML Hospital, however, on 29.01.2020 Sahil Lakra expired during the treatment and Sections 302/120-B were added in the said case and investigation ensued. 2.4. He further stated that due to an old dispute Applicant-Deepanshu had shot Sahil Lakra (deceased) in the head. Signature Not Verified Signed By:HEMANT PRATAP SINGH Signing Date:16.02.2025 20:27:45 BAIL APPLN. 4716/2024

2.5. It is stated that during investigation, along with the statement of Sachin Narwal (Eyewitness – PW1), statement of other witnesses namely Vishal Lakra (PW-2), Jatin Lakra (PW-3), Shrey Lakra (PW-4), Deepak Lakra (PW-9) and Sachin Lakra were recorded and all of the said witnesses have supported the case of prosecution that the Applicant-Deepanshu shot the deceased Sahil Lakra. 2.6. It is further states that during the investigation, Applicant-Deepanshu was arrested on 28.01.2020 and his disclosure statement was recorded in which he disclosed that he had a quarrel with Deepak, Sachin Lakra and Sahil Lakra (deceased) on 21.09.2019 and during the said quarrel Sahil Lakra (deceased) had assaulted him with an iron rod. He stated that although the matter was settled amicably and no complaint was made, however, he wanted to take revenge from Sahil Lakra (deceased), therefore, he had made a plan to kill Sahil Lakra along with the co-accused Saurabh Khatri. He stated that he received the Pistol and 02 Live cartridges from co-accused Saurabh Khatri which belonged to his late brother Jatin. He stated on

26.01.2020 the co-accused Saurabh Khatri has gathered the information about Sahil Lakra and as per the plan it was decided that the Applicant- Deepanshu would sit in the car with Sahil Lakra (deceased) and Sachin Narwal and further would shoot Sahil Lakra in his head through the above pistol received from the co-accused Saurabh Khatri. 2.7. It is stated that thereafter co-accused Saurabh Khatri as well was arrested and, in his statement, recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C he disclosed that he helped in planning the murder of Sahil Lakra (deceased) and further he also confirmed the fact that he provided the pistol and 02 live cartridges to Applicant-Deepanshu to kill Sahil Lakra. Signature Not Verified Signed By:HEMANT PRATAP SINGH Signing Date:16.02.2025 20:27:45 BAIL APPLN. 4716/2024

2.8. Furthermore, during investigation instance Applicant/Deepanshu one improvised pistol 7.65 mm bore as well as one

7.65 mm live cartridge were recovered. It is stated that one 7.65 mm empty cartridge case was found in the Santro Car during inspection by Crime Team. The said recovery of the pistol, live cartridge and empty cartridge case was sent to the FSL for expert opinion wherein the result clearly opined that the empty cartridge found in the deceased car was fired by the weapon of offence i.e. pistol recovered from the Applicant/Deepanshu. 2.9. It is stated that the case is pending trial before the Ld. Trial Court and Charges against the accused persons were framed on 12.08.2024 for offences under Sections 302/120-B of IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. The matter is presently at the stage of examination of the witness wherein 12 out of 32 witnesses stands examined and the next date of hearing before the Trial Court if 18.03.2025. Arguments of the Applicant/accused 3. Learned counsel for the Applicant states that the Applicant herein was arrested on 28.01.2020 and since then he has been lodged in jail. He states that as per the record as on 10.02.2025 the Applicant has been in custody for over a period of 5 years 13 days. 3.1. He points out various contradictions in the testimonies of public witness that have come on record and states that these contradictions create a major doubt on the case of the Prosecution. 3.2. He states that there is no criminal antecedent against the Applicant and being a permanent resident of Delhi as such there are no chances of the applicant for fleeing or tampering with any evidence if he is admitted to bail. Signature Not Verified Signed By:HEMANT PRATAP SINGH Signing Date:16.02.2025 20:27:45 BAIL APPLN. 4716/2024

3.3. He states that investigation has already been completed, chargesheet has been filed and charges as well stands framed by the Trial Court. He states that as public witness as well stands examined and the remaining witness which are yet to be examined are all official witness being doctors and police officials, therefore, there is no likelihood of Applicant tampering with the evidence. 3.4. He further states that the Applicant undertakes to make himself available as and when directed by this Court or as required by the police officials/IO. 3.5. He states that the Applicant is entitled to the benefit of bail on the basis of parity since the co-accused Saurabh Khatri has already been admitted to bail by the coordinate Bench vide order dated 25.10.2024. 3.6. He states that since the trial is likely to take a considerable amount of time; therefore, no useful purpose would be served for keeping the Applicant in judicial custody. Arguments of the Respondent-State 4. In reply, Mr. Khanna, learned APP opposes the bail application of the Applicant. He states that the present case is a case involving commission of an offence of murder with pre-meditation and the allegations levelled in the FIR against the Applicant are very serious and grave in nature. 4.1. He states that the Applicant/Deepanshu herein killed the deceased Sahil Lakra by firing a gun shot and it was planned murder, which was executed with the co-accused Saurabh Khatri in a well-planned manner. 4.2. He states that the eye-witness account of Sachin Narwal (PW-1) and Vishal Lakra (PW-2) is sterling and proves the case of the prosecution. He states that the FSL result as well cannot be overlooked wherein the result Signature Not Verified Signed By:HEMANT PRATAP SINGH Signing Date:16.02.2025 20:27:45 BAIL APPLN. 4716/2024 concluded that the empty cartridge recovered from the car had been discharged through the pistol recovered from the accused/Applicant- Deepanshu. Therefore, this as well makes out a strong prima facie case to believe that the Applicant has committed the offence. 4.3. He states that the as per the Nominal Roll the jail conduct of the accused has been unsatisfactory and 9 punishment tickets have been issued against him for quarrelling and keeping prohibited articles, therefore, the Applicant does not deserve to be enlarge on bail. 4.4. He states that charge-sheet was filed on 23.04.2020; charges were framed on 30.08.2022 and thereafter 12 witnesses already stand examined and therefore the trial has been proceeding smoothly. He states that the incident happened on 27.01.2020 and due to the Covid pandemic in March 2020 until 2022 due to the restricted and limited functioning of Courts, the framing of charge was delayed. However, once the Court started functioning the trial has proceeded smoothly. He states therefore there has been no delay in completing the trial by the prosecution. 4.5. He states previously as well the regular bail application of the Applicant filed before the ASJ-03, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi (Trial Court) has already been dismissed vide order dated 02.12.2024. Analysis and conclusion 5. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Before adverting to 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. Signature Not Verified Signed By:HEMANT PRATAP SINGH Signing Date:16.02.2025 20:27:45 BAIL APPLN. 4716/2024

7. The Supreme Court in the case of Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee1, State of Uttar Pradesh v. Amarmani Tripathi2, and Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh3 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.

8. Recently, the Supreme Court on 27.11.2024 in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 13378 of 2024 titled as X v. State of Rajasthan4 made observations vis-à-vis for grant of bail in cases involving serious offenses. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under:- “14. Ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity, etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses, the Court be it the Trial Court or the High Court should be loath in entertaining the bail application of the accused. 15. Over a period of time, we have noticed two things, i.e., (i) either bail is granted after the charge is framed and just before the victim is to be examined by the prosecution before the trial court, or (ii) bail is granted once the recording of the oral evidence of the victim is complete by looking into some discrepancies here or there in the deposition and thereby