This petition for bail is the first petition, filed by & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation’ (2022) 10 SCC 51, are also relevant & Anr.

This petition for bail is the first petition, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. This petition has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.57 dated

03.03.2026 for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 109(1), 115, 190, 191(2), 191(3), 351(3), 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita & Sections 25(1-b)a of Arms Act, Police Station Sector-56, District Gurugram.

#2. Briefly stated the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘Ajit’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the above-named complainant that on CRM-M-33542-2026

02.03.2026, at about 4-5 P.M., he alongwith his son ‘Divesh’ was in the vegetables market, where ‘Bobby’, ‘Praveen’ (petitioner herein), ‘Abhishek’, ‘Rahul’, ‘Rohit’, ‘Ronit’, ‘Ritik’, ‘Rocky’, ‘Sanju’, ‘Gudar’, ‘Manish’, ‘Pradush’, ‘Sunny’ and 6-7 other persons armed with sticks, rods and pistols launched an assault upon them and inflicted various injuries. It was also stated by the above-named complainant that even firearms were used by the assailants party, but somehow they were saved.

#3. It is the case of the prosecution that in view to above-mentioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up.

#4. Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate appears on behalf of complainant. He has filed Power of Attorney. The same be taken on record.

#5. Status report and custody certificate have been filed by learned State counsel. The same, too, be taken on record.

#7. Heard. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than four months and five days, and that the investigation in this case is already complete, and therefore, nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, although it has been alleged that the assailants were carrying a firearm at the time of incident and they fired gunshot, but any gunshot injury was not suffered by the complainant or his son. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that all the injuries found on the person of victim were caused by the other kind of weapons, and not the firearm, and that the victims have already been discharged from the hospital. CRM-M-33542-2026

#8. The learned State counsel being assisted by learned counsel for the complainant have controverted the above-mentioned arguments. It has been contended by learned counsel for the complainant that in the present case there were three assailants, who were carrying firearms and they fired gunshots, but the complainant and his son were not hit. According to learned counsel for the complainant, the attack was launched with an intention to kill the complainant and his son, and that the intention of assailants is reflected from the fact that a large group of assailants comprising of 13 persons, armed with deadly weapons, under a common conspiracy inflicted multiple injuries on the person of complainant. It has also been pointed out by learned counsel for the complainant that the petitioner does not have clean antecedents, and that he is facing another trial, vide FIR No.111 dated 19.03.2025, Police Station Bhondsi, District Gurugram. .

#10. The record has been perused carefully. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision: - i) that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more than four months and five days; ii) that the injured have already been discharged from the hospital; iii) that the investigation in this case is already complete, and therefore, nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner; iv) that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future v) that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any useful purpose; vi) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the CRM-M-33542-2026 petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; vii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not co-operate/participate in the trial.

#11. In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another’, (2018) 3 SCC 22, are relevant, wherein it has been observed that “a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case”.

#12. The principles laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of CRM-M-33542-2026 India in the case of ‘Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another’ (2022) 10 SCC 51, are also relevant in this case. In the abovementioned case, it has been observed that “the rate of conviction in criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a negative sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to legal principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which is not punitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a case of grave injustice”.

#13. Recently, in the case of ‘Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Chhattisgarh’, 2025 SCC Online SC 322, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that “if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed”. It has also been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case that “delays are bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credibility of our justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently”.

#14. To elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. CRM-M-33542-2026 This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as mandated by Hon’ble Apex court in “Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and Another”, 2024 SCC Online SC 4354.

#15. If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of bail, and that the present petition deserves to be allowed.

#16. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the present petition is hereby allowed. The petitioner is hereby ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However the abovesaid concession shall be subject to following conditions:- (i) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority. (ii) that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Court concerned and shall notify the change in address to the trial Court, till the final decision of the trial; and (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE

08.07.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Yes/No Whether reportable