Delhi High Court: In an application filed by the applicant (‘accused’) under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking regular bail in FIR registered under Sections 3361, 342 of the Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 25, 27, 54, 59 of the Arms Act, 1959, Sanjeev Narula, J., stated that whether the co-accused’s statements were sufficient to implicate the accused would be determined during trial, and at this juncture, the accused could be given benefit of doubt. Thus, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that the accused did not have any criminal antecedents, the Court was inclined to enlarge the accused on bail on furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000 with one surety of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court on certain conditions.
Background
The present case was registered on 4-12-2023, based on the complainant’s statement who was working as a guard at a villa which belonged to Ex-MLA, Faridkot, Punjab. The complainant narrated that on 3-12-2023, around 6:30 pm, he was in the guard room at the main gate and heard a gunshot. When he went outside, he saw that there were two unidentified persons, approximately 25 years old, who fired around 4-5 rounds at the main gate of the house, after which they fled. Accordingly, the present FIR was registered, and the instant case was transferred for further investigation to the Crime Branch, New Delhi.
On receipt of secret information, ‘X’ was apprehended and during interrogation, he disclosed that he along with two other persons, one of which was the present accused, were involved in the crime. ‘X’ also revealed that he was in contact with member of ‘Gogi Gang’ who directed the accused to contact one member of the “Lawrence Bishnoi Gang”. That member had ordered ‘X’ to fire at the gate of Ex-MLA and in furtherance of his directions, ‘X’ received 5 pistols and 15-16 cartridges from Jahari Bypass, Sonipat.
On 20-12-2023, the TIP proceedings of the accused and the co-accused were conducted. However, the complainant refused to identify the accused persons citing that since they were associated with a notorious gang, he was afraid that they might cause harm to him. Although he identified the shooters, he did not disclose the same to the Magistrate. In this regard, his statement under Section 1613 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 was also recorded.
The respondents contended that the disclosure statements of the co-accused unequivocally suggested that the accused was acting under the directions of the aforementioned gangs. This claim was further substantiated by the Call-Detail Records (‘CDRs’) of the accused and the co-accused persons, which placed them near the crime scene both on the day of the incident and the preceding day. Thus, the disclosure statements along with the CDRs was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court after considering the facts and submissions, noted that the investigation was complete, charge-sheet was filed, and the matter was at the stage of framing of charges. As per the latest Nominal Roll, as on 12-3-2025, the accused was in custody for 1 year, 3 months and 5 days. It was also noted that the overall jail conduct and the accused’s jail conduct for the last one year was satisfactory.
The Court observed that the prosecution relied on CCTV footage of the incident, which purportedly showed two individuals with covered faces firing at the gate of Ex-MLA. However, the footage exhibited before the Court did not clearly reveal the shooter’s identity. Moreover, the forensic analysis of the CCTV footage and the CDR analysis of the accused’s mobile phone was still pending. Therefore, the Court refrained from drawing any conclusions at this stage.
The Court stated that a firearm was allegedly recovered at the instance of the accused from a location near the crime scene, described as Ganda Nala. However, the Court stated that as per the FSL report, the recovered firearm did not match the fired exhibits sent for forensic examination. Pertinently, the accused was not conclusively identified in the CCTV footage. Thus, the case against him primarily rested on the disclosure statements of the co-accused and the CDR analysis.
The Court stated that whether the co-accused’s statements were sufficient to implicate the accused would be determined during trial, and at this juncture, the accused could be given benefit of doubt.
Thus, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that the accused did not have any criminal antecedents, the Court was inclined to enlarge the accused on bail on furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000 with one surety of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court on certain conditions.
The Court stated that accused should co-operate in any further investigation as and when directed by the Investigation Officer (‘IO’). The accused should not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with the evidence of the case, in any manner whatsoever. Further, the accused under no circumstance leave the bounds of Delhi NCR without informing the IO concerned.
The Court clarified that any observations made in the present order were for the purpose of deciding the present bail application and should not influence the outcome of the trial and not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
[Nitish v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1749, decided on 21-03-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Lewish Edward, P. Vignesh, Advocates
For the Respondent: Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State for Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State with SI Parmod Kumar, PS Crime Branch
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
1. Section 125 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’)
3. Section 180 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
