Mr. Pranav Gupta, Mohd. Arif, Mr. Akash Verma, Mr. and Mr. Nilesh Deep, Siddhant v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 7/2024 registered at PS Govind Puri for offences under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602 and 27/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959.

2. The prosecution’s case, as set out in the FIR, is as follows:

2.1 The FIR originates from the complaint/statement of the Complainant, Rohit, who alleged that on 3rd January, 2024, at around 09:00 PM, he and his 1 “BNSS” 2 “IPC” BAIL APPLN. 4763/2024 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 07/03/2025 at 12:24:52 friend Rohan were standing at C-Lal Chowk, near the Transit Camp. The Applicant (accused), who also resides in the same area, asked Rohan to buy alcohol from a nearby shop. When Rohan refused, Jamalu allegedly became aggressive, hurled abuses, and issued a threat: “tum log bohot sar chad gaye ho aur jab mai tumhe marunga toh koi beech mei nahi aaega aur 10 minute mei hi goli lagvata hu tujhe”. Alarmed by this, Rohit and Rohan left the spot.

2.2 About half an hour later, at the C-Lal Chowk Bus Stand, Complainant saw two unidentified men physically assaulting Rohan. One of them was attempting to load a desi katta (country-made pistol). As Rohit intervened to help his friend, he managed to grab one of the assailants, but at that moment, the other accused fired a shot. The bullet struck Rohit on the left side of his abdomen, causing him to collapse. Both the accused fled, but as they ran, one of them tripped and fell near an HDFC ATM, where Rohan managed to restrain him

2.3 At this point, the Applicant, allegedly arrived at the scene and declared, “Yeh aadmi mera hai, aur isne mere kehne se hi goli chalai hai. Tumse jo hoga kar lena,” before leaving with the co-accused. Shortly thereafter, the Complainant’s sister, Lakshmi, arrived and made a PCR call. Police personnel took Rohit to AIIMS Trauma Centre, and the matter was assigned to SI Ankur for investigation.

2.4 The scene of crime was inspected by Crime Team/ South East, District. A Bullet lead was recovered from the crime scene and was seized.

2.5 During the investigation, IO SI Ankur visited AIIMS Trauma Centre, where the Complainant was admitted under MLC No. 500413487, dated 3rd January, 2024. The medical examination report noted a “others gun-shot BAIL APPLN. 4763/2024 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 07/03/2025 at 12:24:52 wound 3x1 cms over left iliac region on anterior aspect”

2.6 On 04th January, 2024 the Applicant was detained and interrogated. In his disclosure statement, he admitted to orchestrating the attack. He stated that he had contacted his associate, Raja, and instructed him to kill Rohan. Pursuant to this, two individuals—Shekhar @ Golu @ Dolchi and Vipin @ Rapper—met him at C-Lal Chowk. The Applicant pointed out Rohan, following which, Shekhar and Vipin assaulted him, physically assaulting him. As Rohit intervened to defend Rohan, he grabbed hold of Shekhar. At this moment, Vipin @ Rapper pulled out a firearm and shot Rohit in the stomach. While Vipin managed to flee, Shekhar was apprehended by bystanders at the scene. The Applicant then arrived at the spot and helped Shekhar escape.

2.7 On 5th January, 2024, the accused Vipin and Shekhar were arrested. Their disclosure statements aligned with the allegations made in the complaint. The weapon of offence, a desi katta, along with a live cartridge was recovered from Vipin’s possession. During interrogation, both accused revealed that the firearm and ammunition had been provided to Vipin by Raja, a resident of Faridabad, Haryana. Since then, Raja has been declared an absconder in the present case.

2.8 A notice under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was issued to Virender Kumar Khatana, owner of Pizza Dot In, a shop located at H. No. 511A, Gali No. 05, Govindpuri, Delhi, requesting CCTV footage from the premises. The footage revealed a boy falling in front of the HDFC Bank ATM and seeking refuge inside Pizza Dot In. Moments later, a group of individuals apprehended him and engaged in a scuffle before another individual, identified as the Applicant, intervened and took him BAIL APPLN. 4763/2024 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 07/03/2025 at 12:24:52 away. The Complainant subsequently identified the fallen boy as Shekhar @ Dolchi @ Golu.

2.9 During interrogation, the Applicant admitted to making a WhatsApp call from his mobile phone to his associate, Raja, urging him to send two individuals to kill Rohan and the Complainant. The Applicant’s Oppo mobile phone was later handed over to IO SI Ankur by his brother, Kamaluddin, and subsequently seized.

2.10 The accused, Md. Raja, who had been declared an absconder by the Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 6th May, 2024, was later arrested by the Crime Branch in connection with FIR No. 116/2024, registered under Sections 186, 353, and 332 of the IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. During interrogation, he admitted to his involvement in the present case. Consequently, he was formally arrested in this case on 9th July, 2024, and was subsequently granted bail on 7th November, 2024.

2.11 The seized exhibits have been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Rohini, for examination, and the results are currently awaited.

2.12 The matter is listed before the Trial Court on the point of charge and the filing of supplementary chargesheet.

3.1 The Applicant seeks bail on the following grounds: The Applicant has been in custody since 4th January, 2024. With the chargesheet already filed, his continued incarceration serves no purpose.

3.2 The ballistic evidence raises inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case. The used cartridge recovered from the crime scene does not match the specifications of the bullet fired from the recovered desi katta, suggesting that the alleged weapon may not have been used in the incident.

3.3 The absence of any prior conflict between the Applicant and the BAIL APPLN. 4763/2024 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 07/03/2025 at 12:24:52 Complainant weakens the prosecution’s case, as there is no apparent motive for the Applicant to harm the Complainant.

3.4 The Applicant has been falsely implicated. He was not aiding the accused in escaping but was, in fact, attempting to protect the Complainant from further harm.

3.5 The Applicant was not present at the scene when the incident occurred. At the relevant time, he was at his autobody (car paint) shop, located at a considerable distance from the crime scene.

4. Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP for the State, strongly opposes the bail application. He submits that there are specific allegations against Applicant which implicate him. Moreover, the Applicant has criminal antecedents. The Applicant is a flight risk and also likely to tamper evidence and influence witnesses. Therefore, the Applicant should not be released on bail.

5. The Court has considered the aforenoted contentions. It is well established through catena of judgments by the Supreme Court that the object of granting bail is neither punitive nor preventative. The primary purpose sought to be achieved by bail is to secure the attendance of the accused person at the trial.3 The chargesheet stands filed in the present case. As per the nominal roll, as on 11th January, 2025, the Applicant has been in custody for over one year and eight days.

6. As regards criminal antecedents are concerned, it is noted that the Applicant has served the sentence in FIR No. 565/2016 under Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and Section