Delhi High Court: A bail application was filed by the petitioner seeking regular bail in connection with FIR registered at Police Station Shahdara, Delhi, under Sections 302, 394, and 120-B of Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. Vikas Mahajan, J., held that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of regular bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000 and one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
According to the prosecution, the accused individuals had been observing a businessman who ran a currency exchange business in Chandni Chowk and regularly carried large amounts of cash home. The petitioner, along with his associates, conspired to rob and murder the businessman. On the day of the incident, the co-accused fired a gunshot at him, causing his death. The petitioner was allegedly waiting nearby on a motorcycle in a start position, ready to assist in the escape. After the shooting, he and the co-accused fled the scene on the motorcycle.
The petitioner sought bail primarily on the grounds that the evidence against him was weak, including a Test Identification Parade (TIP), CCTV footage, Call Detail Records (CDRs), and location tracking. His counsel argued that the TIP witness had passed away before recording his testimony, rendering the statement under Section 161 CrPC inadmissible. He also contended that CDRs could only serve as corroborative evidence and that the petitioner’s location was recorded 1.5 hours before the incident. Furthermore, the CCTV footage witness had not identified the petitioner in court. Additionally, the petitioner had already been in custody for six and a half years, with only 13 out of 43 prosecution witnesses examined, indicating that the trial would take a long time to conclude.
The prosecution opposed the bail application, arguing that the TIP witness had identified the petitioner during the TIP process and had assigned him a specific role in the crime. The prosecution maintained that the absence of the witness should not be considered at this stage, as the trial court would assess the evidentiary value of the TIP during the trial. The prosecution also contended that the benefit of parity could not be extended to the petitioner, as his role was more active compared to co-accused who had been granted bail. Unlike the co-accused, the petitioner was directly involved in the crime as he was riding the motorcycle used for the getaway.
The Court acknowledged that the TIP witness had passed away before recording his testimony, thereby affecting the evidentiary weight of the identification. The Court noted that since the TIP was a significant piece of incriminating evidence against the petitioner, the absence of the witness would benefit the petitioner in the bail consideration. The Court also considered that the petitioner had already been in custody for over six and a half years and given the large number of witnesses yet to be examined, the trial was likely to be prolonged. It was also observed that the petitioner was not in custody for any other case, and mere past involvement could not be the sole ground for rejecting bail. Additionally, the Court recognized that CDRs were not substantive evidence, and that the location chart did not conclusively establish the petitioner’s presence at the crime scene at the exact time of the incident.
Considering the cumulative circumstances, the Court held that the petitioner had made out a case for regular bail. The petitioner was granted bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 and one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, subject to the following conditions:
(a) The petitioner shall appear before the court whenever required.
(b) The petitioner shall not change his address without prior intimation to the Investigating Officer.
(c) The petitioner shall provide his mobile number to the Investigating Officer and keep it operational at all times.
(d) The petitioner shall not engage in any criminal activity or contact the victim or witnesses directly or indirectly.
[Vikas Bharti v GNCTD, Bail Appln. 137/2025, decided on 12-03-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Akshay Bhandari, Mr. Kushal Kumar, Mr.Anmol Sachdeva, Ms. Megha Saroa and Mr. Janak Raj Ambawat, Advocates for petitioner
Mr. Aman Usman, APP for State with Inspr. Neeraj Kumar, PS Shahdara
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
