Delhi High Court

Narender Meena vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 26 September, 2024

Author: Sudhir Kumar Jain

Bench: Sudhir Kumar Jain

                          $~

                          *     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                          %                              Reserved on: August 16, 2024
                                                         Decided on: September 26, 2024
                          +     BAIL APPLN. 1912/2023

                                NARENDER MEENA
                                                                       ..... Petitioner
                                                 Through:    Ms. Rebecca John, Senior
                                                             Advocate with Mr. Gaurav
                                                             Gupta,    Mr.   Deepanshu
                                                             Choithani, Ms. Anushka
                                                             Baruah,    Mr.    Mayank
                                                             Pachauri, Mr. Hasan Zaidi,
                                                             Mr. Rohit Kumar and
                                                             Ms. Madhuri Khubwani,
                                                             Advocates
                                                 V

                                CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
                                                              ..... Respondent

                                                 Through:    Mr. Rajesh Kumar, SPP
                                                             with Ms. Mishika Pandita
                                                             and Mohd. Changez Ali
                                                             Khan,     Advocates with
                                                             Insp. Rohit Yadav

                          CORAM
                          HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
                          ORDER

1. The petitioner/Narender Meena has filed the present bail

application under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

Signing Date:30.09.2024 BAIL.APPLN.1912/2023 Page 1

1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") seeking regular bail in

FIR bearing no. RC-06(S)/2021/CBI/SC-III/ND dated 10.09.2021

registered under sections 302/323/341/34 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") at P.S. CBI/SC-III/New

Delhi.

2. The relevant facts of the case as reflecting from record are that FIR

bearing no. 0451/2021 dated 09.08.2021 was got registered under

sections 302/323/341/34 IPC at P.S. Hari Nagar pertaining to murder

of an undertrial prisoner (hereinafter referred to as "UTP") namely

Ankit Gujjar in pursuance of order dated 07.08.2021 passed by the

concerned court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi

under section 156 (3) of the Code on an application/complaint filed

by Geeta Devi, mother of UTP Ankit Gujjar. The allegations as made

in FIR are that the petitioner/Narender Meena, the then Deputy

Superintendent, Central Jail-3, Tihar Central Prison, New Delhi and

other jail officials on 03.08.2021 had brutally beaten UTP Ankit

Gujjar and did not provide any medical attention leading to his death

in the jail premises. The petitioner/Narender Meena and other

officials were harassing UTP Ankit Gujjar to extort money from his

Signing Date:30.09.2024 BAIL.APPLN.1912/2023 Page 2

relatives. The mother and other relatives of UTP Ankit Gujjar filed

writ petition W.P. (Crl.) 1558/2021 before this Court seeking transfer

of investigation of FIR bearing no.451/2021 registered at P.S. Hari

Nagar to CBI and coordinate bench of this Court vide judgment dated

08.09.2021 transferred the investigation to CBI. Accordingly FIR

bearing no. 0451/2021 was re-registered vide RC

no.06(S)/2021/CBI/SC-III/ND under sections 302/323/341/34 IPC at

P.S. CBI/SC-III/New Delhi. The charge sheet was filed on

01.07.2022 before the concerned court under sections 304/323/34

IPC against the petitioner/Narender Meena and subsequently

supplementary charge-sheet dated 13.09.2022 was filed before the

concerned court against 06 persons including the petitioner/Narender

Meena.

2.1 The petitioner/Narender Meena as per the charge sheet in June

2021 demanded Rs.5 lakhs from Ankit Gujjar for allowing him to use

mobile phone and the deal was finalised at Rs.2,25,000/- and out of

which Rs.2,00,000/- were paid. Subsequently Ankit Gujjar had

decided not to give balance amount of Rs.25,000/- and the

petitioner/Narender Meena due to this reason started to harass him as

Signing Date:30.09.2024 BAIL.APPLN.1912/2023 Page 3

well as the other 02 inmates lodged in his cell namely Gurjeet @

Bobby and Gurpreet @ Badal. The witnesses were examined during

the investigation and relevant documents and articles were collected.

The investigation was focused on the 05 issues which are (1) use of

criminal force/murder of Ankit Gujjar; (2) negligence in providing

medical attention to Ankit Gujjar; (3) connivance of Vinay Thakur in

not allowing the PCR personnel inside the jail to enquire about the

condition of Ankit Gujjar; (4) non-functioning/shutting down of

CCTV cameras and (5) extortion/demand of money by jail officials

in Tihar Central Prison.

2.2 Regarding issue (1), statements of four eye-witnesses namely

Gurjeet @ Bobby, Gurpreet @ Badal (both inmates lodged in the cell

of UTP Ankit Gujjar), Bhisam @ Chintu and Deepak Koli [both

sewadars at Chakkar (office of Deputy Superintendent, Internal)]

were recorded wherein they primarily stated that a team of jail

officials on 03.08.2021 at around 04:00 pm conducted a search of

Cell-16, Ward-5A where UTP Ankit Gujjar was lodged along with

Gurjeet @ Bobby and Gurpreet @ Badal and one mobile set, one

USB cable and one handmade knife were recovered from the cell

Signing Date:30.09.2024 BAIL.APPLN.1912/2023 Page 4

during the search. UTP Ankit Gujjar was not available in the cell at

that time as he had been taken to Jhajjar for production in a trial

proceeding and was brought back at around 06:30 pm. UTP Ankit

Gujjar due to recovery of the prohibited items from the cell was

instructed to be shifted to Ward-1 but UTP Ankit Gujjar resisted the

directions of the jail authorities and refused to shift to Ward-1 due to

presence of rival gang members there. Thereafter heated verbal

arguments and fisticuff were exchanged between the

petitioner/Narender Meena and UTP Ankit Gujjar at around

07:00 p.m. on 03.08.2021. The petitioner/ Narender Meena as per

eye-witnesses subsequent to this incident asked sewadars to make

announcements directing whole jail staff to report at Chakkar

(internal office). Thereafter the petitioner/Narender Meena along

with above named two inmates lodged in Cell-16 of Ward-5A were

taken to electrical panja at Chakkar and were brutally beaten for

about 30 minutes by the petitioner/Narender Meena along with 05

other jail officials with polycarbonate lathis (danda) and they started

to bleed due to assault. UTP Ankit Gujjar was subjected to forceful

attack and his vital organs were targeted. The inmates Gurpreet and

Signing Date:30.09.2024 BAIL.APPLN.1912/2023 Page 5

Gurjeet were shifted to Cell-19 of Ward-1 and lodged with another

inmate namely Viplav. UTP Ankit Gujjar was shifted to Cell-9 of

Ward-1 separately to keep him in isolation and was groaning with

pain.

2.3 UTP Ankit Gujjar after the incident of brutal use of criminal

force by the jail officials made a call/complaint for fever and body

ache at around 12:30 a.m. on 04.08.2021 through Warder Yogesh and

the said complaint was brought to the knowledge of Dr. Sunil

Sharma, Medical Officer on duty who made an entry regarding the

complaint in the OPD Register of Ward-1 but did not attend the

medical call and sent nursing staff who gave pain killers to him and

proper description of injuries was not noted in the register. The

petitioner/Narender Meena was requested to get the inmates

medically examined but he refused to do so. Another inmate/ witness

namely Zakir who was lodged in Cell-10 of Ward-1 (adjacent to

Cell-9) stated that UTP Ankit Gujjar continued groaning till wee

hours of 04.08.2021. UTP Ankit Gujjar In the morning of 04.08.2021

was found lying unconscious in his cell and possibly died in the wee

hours of 04.08.2021. The roll call of prisoners was taken around

Signing Date:30.09.2024 BAIL.APPLN.1912/2023 Page 6

05:30 a.m. and Head Warder called UTP Ankit Gujjar from outside

his cell to join the roll call but got no response from him. The cell

was unlocked and UTP Ankit Gujjar was taken to Jail Hospital, CJ-3,

Tihar Central Prison where he was declared brought dead at 07:15

am. The cause of death of UTP Ankit Gujjar was stated to be

multiple anti-mortem injuries like abrasions, contusions, lacerations

present all over the body and subarachnoid haemorrhages in brain

which were blunt force injuries caused by blunt objects like rod,

baton or lathi etc. The cause of death of UTP Ankit Gujjar was

"haemorrhage consequent upon cumulative effect of multiple

blunt force injuries sustained to the body". UTP Ankit Gujjar as

per post-mortem report had died in the intervening night of 03-

04.08.2021.

2.4 The blood and nail clippings of UTP Ankit Gujjar were

collected by Delhi Police and sent to DFS, Rohini, Delhi for DNA

profiling. The expert opinion/DNA profile was collected by Delhi

Police and provided to CBI for investigation. CBI recovered five

polycarbonate lathis with possible traces of blood from the Store of

CJ-3 after forensic examination by CFSL Expert. Two more

Signing Date:30.09.2024 BAIL.APPLN.1912/2023 Page 7

polycarbonate lathis with possible traces of blood were recovered

from the Factory Panja, Chakkar and Electric Panja located inside

CJ-3, Tihar Central Prison, Delhi. Thereafter seven lathis were sent to

the CFSL, New Delhi for examination and expert opinion. CFSL has

confirmed the presence of blood on two lathis matching with the

DNA profiles of UTP Ankit Gujjar, Gurjeet @ Bobby and Gurpreet

@ Badal. CFSL report confirms the presence of blood of Ankit

Gujjar at the scene of crime. The CCTV cameras installed in jail no.3

were found to be not working at the relevant time at Ward-5A,

Electric Panja and Ward-1. The CCTV footage of Deodhi which was

ordered to be preserved by the concerned court of Metropolitan

Magistrate was also not available. The certificate dated 06.08.2021

regarding non-functioning of the CCTV cameras due to technical

fault was found given ante-dated. The petitioner/Narender Meena

was the overall in-charge of Jail no.3 after the Jail Superintendent

and the co-accused persons were his subordinates. In the

supplementary chargesheet, details were mentioned in respect of the

co-accused to show how they participated in the commission of

offence and also did not make any effort to get the injured persons

Signing Date:30.09.2024 BAIL.APPLN.1912/2023 Page 8

medically examined despite having knowledge of their bad condition.

The co-accused persons also did not report the incident to the senior

officers. The petitioner/Narender Meena was arrested on 05.05.2022

and was remanded to judicial custody vide order dated 11.05.2022.

3. The petitioner filed an application for grant of regular bail

titled as State V Narender Meena and Others which was dismissed

vide order dated 24.04.2023 (hereinafter referred to as "the

impugned order") passed by the court of Sh. Ashwani Kumar

Sarpal, Special Judge (PC Act), CBI-08, Rouse Avenue Courts, New

Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court"). The relevant

portion of the impugned order passed by the trial court is reproduced

as under:

...However, keeping in view the seriousness of the case and accused trying to influence the witnesses, he does not deserve to be released on bail. Accused is in such high position and of status that the apprehension of prosecution that he will influence the witnesses and tamper with the evidence if released on bail are very strong and cannot be ignored. If the case is proved by prosecution and charge of murder is framed against him as per submissions of CBI, then the punishment will be very severe which may be capital punishment or life imprisonment, so I am of the view that it is not a fit case where accused should be released on bail. The larger interest of the society has to be given preference over the liberty of the accused. The

Signing Date:30.09.2024 BAIL.APPLN.1912/2023 Page 9

incident of beating given to Ankit Gujjar and other two inmates who were under judicial custody were totally unconnected with the incident of alleged slapping and fisticuff taken place inside of the cell as accused in order to take revenge and after preplanning called staff and other co-accused to Chakkar and gave beatings to Ankit Gujjar and also gave instructions not to give him any medical aid, who ultimately expired. Moreover, there is life risk of the accused as admitted by him because of threats received from the associates of gangster deceased Ankit Gujjar if he comes out of the jail. The delay is mostly happening on the part of the accused persons despite the fact that this court is trying to take up the matter on day to day basis. Accordingly, bail application is dismissed.

4. The petitioner/Narender Meena being aggrieved filed the

present bail application on the grounds that the investigation of the

case has been done in an unfair and prejudicial manner

compromising the right of a fair trial guaranteed under Article 21 of

the Constitution to the petitioner. The petitioner was not being

properly heard by the investigative agencies so he filed applications

bearing Crl. M.A. 8637-39/2022 in W.P.(Crl.) 1558/2021. CBI sent

notice dated 04.05.2022 to the petitioner for joining the investigation

on 05.05.2022 and he was arrested on the same day in a hurried

manner just because the petitioner sought to enforce his right to fair

investigation. CBI or Delhi Police till 05.05.2022 had never

Signing Date:30.09.2024 BAIL.APPLN.1912/2023 Page 10

expressed any apprehension that the petitioner is not cooperating with

the investigation or influencing the witnesses or may flee from

justice. The petitioner was arrested due to reason that he approached

this court stating that CBI is not conducting fair investigation.

4.1 The petitioner's father is suffering from various ailments like

brain haemorrhage, arthritis and has recently undergone knee

replacement surgery. The parents of the petitioner are old aged and

were being looked after by the petitioner. There is no reason for

keeping the petitioner in custody as the CBI had already admitted that

the investigation qua the petitioner was already complete. The

prosecution is relying on 150 witnesses, 159 documents and 24

exhibits and the trial would take considerable time to conclude. There

have been serious lapses in the investigation causing great prejudice

to the petitioner.

4.2 The co-accused namely Dinesh Chikara and Deepak Dabas

applied for statutory bail under section 167 (2) of the Code. CBI filed

a written reply wherein it was stated that there was no evidence

against the petitioner regarding the allegation of extortion levelled by

UTP Ankit Gujjar or his family. The petitioner has a wife and 02

Signing Date:30.09.2024 BAIL.APPLN.1912/2023 Page 11

school going children aged 9 and 13 years respectively and is the

primary bread earner of the family. The family of the petitioner is

suffering in his absence and is at high risk due to threats received

from gang members of UTP Ankit Gujjar.

4.3 The impugned order passed by the trial court suffers from

various errors. The trial court dealt with the bail application as if it

was conducting a full trial. The trial court has weighed the entire

evidence, although incorrectly, at the stage of bail causing prejudice

to the petitioner and denial of natural justice to him. The impugned

order is liable to be set aside. The petitioner suffered several serious

injuries as he was brutally beaten by UTP Ankit Gujjar and his

cellmates. The petitioner has visited the Jail Hospital, DDU Hospital,

GB Pant Hospital and Safdarjung Hospital for treatment several times

but still his condition has deteriorated. The petitioner was advised to

undergo CT Angiography, thereafter, he was referred to Medical

Board by the Safdarjung Hospital. The petitioner moved an

application for grant of interim bail on medical grounds before the

trial court which was also dismissed by the trial court vide separate

order dated 24.04.2023. The charge sheet qua the petitioner has

Signing Date:30.09.2024 BAIL.APPLN.1912/2023 Page 12

already been filed. There are no prior criminal antecedents/cases/

departmental complaints against the petitioner. The petitioner has

deep roots in the society and there are no chances of him fleeing from

justice. The petitioner and his family members have a threat to their

lives from the gang members of Ankit Gujjar and Rohit Choudhary

inside the jail. The petitioner has spent more than one year in jail and

has developed neuro-medical ailments. The petitioner is an ordinary

citizen having high religious values. The petitioner has joined

investigation as and when directed by the IO and supplied all the

information. The petitioner is no longer required for interrogation as

the investigation is already complete. The petitioner prayed that he be

granted regular bail in case arising out of RC-06(S)/2021/CBI/SC-

III/ND.

5. The respondent/CBI filed a reply to the present bail application

wherein besides mentioning the factual position stated that the

petitioner is making vague and irrational submissions. The petitioner

was suspended vide enquiry related to death of UTP Ankit Gujjar.

The petitioner facilitated use of phones inside the jail in lieu of

money which was established during investigation. The petitioner

Signing Date:30.09.2024 BAIL.APPLN.1912/2023 Page 13

slapped UTP Ankit Gujjar who shouted at him saying "aur kaha tak

paise doon main tumhe". The petitioner/Narender Meena was

witnessed by four eye-witnesses while he was assaulting UTP Ankit

Gujjar and his presence at the scene of crime has been confirmed by

other witnesses. The forensic evidence collected during investigation

has corroborated the account of the eye-witnesses. The doctors who

examined the petitioner, the doctor at Jail Hospital and his colleague

who met him after the incident have stated that they did not observe

any grievous injury on the body of the petitioner. The sanction for

prosecution under section 197 of the Code against the petitioner has

been issued by the Competent Authority after scrutinizing the

material on record.

5.1 The doctors who examined the petitioner at DDU Hospital

stated that the petitioner had superficial scratches and they did not

observe any grievous injury on his body. The family of the petitioner

is also provided adequate security after the incident. The complaints

have been filed against the petitioner that he is trying to manipulate

the witnesses through Jail staff. The petitioner himself is responsible

for delaying the trial. The petitioner has been chargesheeted under

Signing Date:30.09.2024 BAIL.APPLN.1912/2023 Page 14

sections 304/323/34 IPC. The trial court passed the impugned order

after application of judicial mind and after considering the material

on record. The petitioner has filed applications for interim bail on

medical grounds. It is prayed that the present bail application be

dismissed.

6. Ms. Rebecca John, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner

advanced oral arguments and also filed written submissions. The

learned Senior Advocate argued that the petitioner was not present at

the scene of crime at the time of occurrence of the alleged offence.

The learned Senior Counsel in support of arguments stated that UTP

Ankit Gujjar was brought from Jhajjar Court to Tihar Jail no. 3 at

06:30 pm and he was informed by the warder Shiva about his transfer

to ward no. 1 but he refused to shift. Thereafter, Warder Shiva

informed the petitioner/Narender Meena who at that time was present

in Ward no. 5B about refusal of UTP Ankit Gujjar then the

petitioner/Narender Meena again asked warder Shiva to ask UTP

Ankit Gujjar to comply with orders of Jail Superintendent but he

again refused to shift. Thereafter the petitioner/Narender Meena went

to Ward no. 5 where heated arguments exchanged between the

Signing Date:30.09.2024 BAIL.APPLN.1912/2023 Page 15

petitioner/Narender Meena and UTP Ankit Gujjar which led to

fisticuff between them. It was further stated that thereafter the

petitioner/Narender Meena went to Chakkar office and sought

permission for raising alarm from Jail Superintendent which was

denied. The petitioner/Narender Meena directed sewadars to make

announcement for directing jail staff to report at Ward 5A and jail

staff was directed to bring UTP Ankit Gujjar and other two inmates

Gurjeet and Gurpreet to electrical panja where they were allegedly

brutally beaten by the petitioner/Narender Meena and other co-

accused for 30 minutes and at 2000 hours, nursing orderly heard

screams/noises from electrical Panja but the learned Senior Counsl

argued that it was impossible because the petitioner/Narender Meena

at 19:59:57 hours called the Jail Superintendent and the

petitioner/Narender Meena went to the Jail Hospital as suggested by

Jail Superintendent and the petitioner/Narender Meena along with

HW Naveen entered the Deodhi area at 20:25:20 hrs. It was further

stated and argued that the petitioner/Narender Meena went outside

the Jail to Deen Dayal Upadhyay (DDU) Hospital at 08:34 pm and

was in DDU Hospital at 09:10 pm. It was further stated that the

Signing Date:30.09.2024 BAIL.APPLN.1912/2023 Page 16

petitioner/Narender Meena after treatment from DDU Hospital went

to his home and came to CJ-3 on the next day i.e., on 04.08.2023 at

07:01:04 hours after being informed from DS Ved Prakash about the

death of UTP Ankit Gujjar. The learned Senior Counsel in support of

arguments referred in and out register of Ward no. 5B (D-77).

statements of Shiva and Dharam Singh before Delhi Police (D-21),

CCTV footage and other documents. The learned Senior Counsel

prayed that the present application be allowed and the petitioner be

granted regular bail.

7. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Special Public Prosecutor for the

respondent/CBI advanced oral arguments and also submitted written

submissions. The SPP argued that despite the fact that UTP Ankit

Gujjar had been brutally beaten and groaning and screaming in pain

and lodged in the cell just adjacent to the Central Jail Hospital, no

proper medical attention was provided to him. The witnesses are still

to be examined before the trial court and the eye-witnesses have

already approached the trial court with the complaint that they were

being continuously threatened to change their statements. The

petitioner took plea of false alibi in his favour. The perusal of charge

Signing Date:30.09.2024 BAIL.APPLN.1912/2023 Page 17

sheet and other evidence reflects that the petitioner is not entitled for

grant of regular bail. The SPP also referred post mortem report of

UTP Ankit Gujjar. The Special Public Prosecutor placed reliance on

Deepak Yadav V State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2022) 8

SCC 559; Ajay Kumar Yadav V State of Uttar Pradesh and

others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 467 and Dudh Nath Pandey V State

of Uttar Pradesh, (1981) 2 SCC 166.

7.1 The Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav V State of Uttar Pradesh

and another (supra) which was referred by SPP for the respondent

observed as under:

22. As reiterated by the two-Judge Bench of this Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee [Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 :

(2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765] , it is well-settled that the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:

(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, behaviour, 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 course, of justice being thwarted by grant

Signing Date:30.09.2024 BAIL.APPLN.1912/2023 Page 18

of bail.

7.2 The Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Yadav V State of Uttar

Pradesh and Others held as under:

5. It is a fact that, in ordinary circumstances, we ought not to invoke our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to invalidate an order granting bail to an accused. But this criteria, while dealing with the question of granting bail, would not apply in a case of custodial death, where police officials are arraigned as accused. Such alleged offences are of grave and serious nature. The role of the Court in dealing with the plea for bail in offences involving police officials has been explained by this Court in the case of State of Jharkhand v. Sandeep Kumar [2024 INSC 179], which was authored by one of us (Sanjay Kumar J.). This was a case in which anticipatory bail was granted to a police official accused of, inter-alia, interpolations in an FIR. It has been held in this decision:--

"9. In the light of these serious allegations made against no less than a senior police officer, an essential cog in the machinery of law enforcement, the High Court ought not to have taken a liberal view in the matter for the mere asking. Considering the position held by the respondent, even if he was suspended from service and the chargesheet had already been filed against him, the possibility of his tampering with the witnesses and the evidence was sufficiently high. That apart, grant of such relief to a police officer facing allegations of manipulating the investigation so as to favour an accused would send out a wrong signal in society. It would be against public interest.

10. No doubt, none of the provisions under which the respondent is alleged to have committed offences entail imprisonment in excess of seven years and most of them were bailable offences. Ordinarily, an accused facing the prospect of incarceration, if proved guilty of such offences, would be entitled to the relief

Signing Date:30.09.2024 BAIL.APPLN.1912/2023 Page 19

of pre-arrest bail. However, the same standard would not be applicable when the accused is the Investigating Officer, a police officer charged with the fiduciary duty of carrying forward the investigation to its rightful conclusion so as to punish the guilty. The 6 respondent is alleged to have failed in this fundamental duty as a police officer. This consideration must necessarily weigh in with the nature of the offences and the possible punishment therefor. Presumptions and other considerations applicable to a layperson facing criminal charges may not carry the same weight while dealing with a police officer who is alleged to have abused his office."

7.3 The Supreme Court in Dudh Nath Pandey V State of Uttar

Pradesh regarding plea of alibi observed as under:

19. ...The plea of alibi postulates the physical impossibility of the presence of the accused at the scene of offence by reason of his presence at another place. The plea can therefore succeed only if it is shown that the accused was so far away at the relevant time that he could not be present at the place where the crime was committed. ...

8. It is appearing that FIR bearing no.0451/2021 was got registered

under sections 302/323/341 read with section 34 IPC at P.S. Hari

Nagar on the allegations as stated in the FIR and subsequently the

investigation was transferred to CBI in pursuance of order dated

08.09.2021 passed by this Court in W.P.(Crl) 1558/2021 and FIR

bearing no. 0451/2021 was re-registered as RC

no.06(S)/2021/CBI/SC-III/ND under sections 302/323/341/34 IPC at

Signing Date:30.09.2024 BAIL.APPLN.1912/2023 Page 20

P.S. CBI/SC-III/New Delhi. The charge-sheet was filed before the

concerned court on 01.07.2022 under sections 304/323/34 IPC

wherein the petitioner was implicated as one of the accused. The

supplementary charge-sheet was filed before the concerned court on

13.09.2022 against six accused including the petitioner/Narender

Meena. The statements of the eye-witnesses/victims Gurjeet @

Bobby and Gurpreet @ Badal and other witnesses recorded during

the investigation are clearly indicative of the involvement of the

petitioner/Narender Meena in commission of the alleged offences.

The polycarbonate lathis which were recovered during the

investigation also reflect that the blood traces found on the said

polycarbonate lathis were matching with the DNA of the deceased

UTP Ankit Gujjar and other eye-witnesses/victims. The cause of

death of UTP Ankit Gujjar was stated to be multiple anti-mortem

injuries like abrasions, contusions, lacerations present all over the

body and subarachnoid haemorrhages in brain which were blunt force

injuries caused by blunt objects like rod, baton or lathi etc. The cause

of death of UTP Ankit Gujjar was "haemorrhage consequent upon

cumulative effect of multiple blunt force injuries sustained to the

Signing Date:30.09.2024 BAIL.APPLN.1912/2023 Page 21

body". The eye-witnesses/victims have also made allegations of

being threatened by the accused persons including the

petitioner/Narender Meena to change their statements. There is

factual force in arguments advanced by the SPP for the

respondent/CBI that the role of the petitioner/Narender Meena has

been established in commission of the crime as 04 eye-witnesses

including Gurjeet @ Bobby and Gurpreet @ Badal saw him beating

the deceased UTP Ankit Gujjar and the polycarbonate lathis stated to

be used to beat the deceased UTP Ankit Gujjar and other eye-

witnesses/victims were found to be containing the blood traces

matching with the DNA of the deceased UTP Ankit Gujjar as well as

surviving victims/eye-witnesses Gurjeet @ Bobby and Gurpreet @

Badal. It is also surfacing that the eye-witnesses have also

complained about being threatened by the accused including the

petitioner/Narender Meena to change their statements and they have

approached the Witness Protection Committee for their protection.

The learned Senior Advocate primarily advanced argument on basis

of plea of alibi but it is apparent that the petitioner/Narender Meena

was present within jail premises and as such said plea of alibi is not

Signing Date:30.09.2024 BAIL.APPLN.1912/2023 Page 22

providing much help to the petitioner.

9. The Supreme Court in Mahipal V Rajesh Kumar Alias Polia

and another, (2020) 2 SCC 118 observed as under:

14. The provision for an accused to be released on bail touches upon the liberty of an individual. It is for this reason that this Court does not ordinarily interfere with an order of the High Court granting bail. However, where the discretion of the High Court to grant bail has been exercised without the due application of mind or in contravention of the directions of this Court, such an order granting bail is liable to be set aside. The Court is required to factor, amongst other things, a prima facie view that the accused had committed the offence, the nature and gravity of the offence and the likelihood of the accused obstructing the proceedings of the trial in any manner or evading the course of justice. The provision for being released on bail draws an appropriate balance between public interest in the administration of justice and the protection of individual liberty pending adjudication of the case.

However, the grant of bail is to be secured within the bounds of the law and in compliance with the conditions laid down by this Court. It is for this reason that a court must balance numerous factors that guide the exercise of the discretionary power to grant bail on a case by case basis. Inherent in this determination is whether, on an analysis of the record, it appears that there is a prima facie or reasonable cause to believe that the accused had committed the crime. It is not relevant at this stage for the court to examine in detail the evidence on record to come to a conclusive finding.

Signing Date:30.09.2024 BAIL.APPLN.1912/2023 Page 23

9.1 The Supreme Court in Brijmani Devi V Pappu Kumar and

another, (2022) 4 SCC 497 on the aspect of application of mind and

requirement of judicious exercise of discretion in arriving at an order

granting bail to the accused, observed as follows:

35. While we are conscious of the fact that liberty of an individual is an invaluable right, at the same time while considering an application for bail courts cannot lose sight of the serious nature of the accusations against an accused and the facts that have a bearing in the case, particularly, when the accusations may not be false, frivolous or vexatious in nature but are supported by adequate material brought on record so as to enable a court to arrive at a prima facie conclusion. While considering an application for grant of bail a prima facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to the vital facts of the case brought on record. Due consideration must be given to facts suggestive of the nature of crime, the criminal antecedents of the accused, if any, and the nature of punishment that would follow a conviction vis-à-vis the offence(s) alleged against an accused.

10. The primary argument advanced by the learned Senior Counsel

for the petitioner for grant of bail to the petitioner is the plea of alibi

i.e. the petitioner could not have committed the alleged offences as

the petitioner was inside the Internal Jail only for 25 minutes and it is

practically impossible for him to call the jail staff with lathis to

Ward-5A, beat the inmates for 10 minutes, then take them to

Signing Date:30.09.2024 BAIL.APPLN.1912/2023 Page 24

electrical panja and beat them for about 45 minutes there. The

Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent refuted this argument by

stating that the petitioner/Narender Meena instead of getting the

injured inmates medically examined took the opportunity to create a

false alibi in his favour and placed reliance on Dudh Nath Pandey V

State of Uttar Pradesh. It is also pertinent to mention here that the

plea of alibi is considered to be a defence which is to be raised at the

stage of trial and not at the stage of consideration of the application

for grant of regular bail. The arguments advanced by the learned

Senior Advocate for the petitioner are without any force particularly

in view of statements of eye-witnesses recorded during investigation.

11. It is also stated in bail application that the investigation qua the

petitioner was already complete and the prosecution is relying on 150

witnesses, 159 documents and 24 exhibits and as such the trial would

take considerable time to conclude. The Supreme Court in Manish

Sisodia V Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 SCC Online SC 1920

expressed concern that by keeping under trial prisoners behind bars

for an unlimited period in the hope of speedy completion of trial

Signing Date:30.09.2024 BAIL.APPLN.1912/2023 Page 25

would deprive his fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the

Constitution. It was observed as under:-

53. The Court further observed that, over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. From our experience, we can say that it appears that the trial courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant of bail. The principle that bail is a rule and refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in breach. On account of non-grant of bail even in straight forward open and shut cases, this Court is flooded with huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is high time that the trial courts and the High Courts should recognize the principle that "bail is rule and jail is exception".

54. In our view, keeping the appellant behind the bars for an unlimited period of time in the hope of speedy completion of trial would deprive his fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. As observed time and again, the prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not be permitted to become punishment without trial.

55. As observed by this Court in the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu (supra), the objective to keep a person in judicial custody pending trial or disposal of an appeal is to secure the attendance of the prisoner at trial.

57. Insofar as the apprehension given by the learned ASG regarding the possibility of tampering the evidence is concerned, it is to be noted that the case largely depends on documentary evidence which is already seized by the prosecution. As such, there is no possibility of tampering with the evidence. Insofar as the concern with regard to influencing the witnesses is concerned, the said concern can

Signing Date:30.09.2024 BAIL.APPLN.1912/2023 Page 26

be addressed by imposing stringent conditions upon the appellant.

The Supreme Court again in Kalvakuntla Kavitha V

Directorate of Enforcement reiterated above principles laid down in

Manish Sisodia V Directorate of Enforcement. It is pertinent to

mention that UTP Ankit Gujjar died while he was in judicial custody.

The post mortem report reflects multiple ante mortem injuries on

body of UTP Ankit Gujjar. The trial court in impugned order also

observed that the petitioner tried to influence witnesses and larger

interest of the society has to be given preference over the liberty of

the accused. There is nothing on record to show that the delay in trial

if any is caused by the respondent/CBI. It is also worth mentioning

here that the petitioner/Narender Meena preferred an application

before the Principal District and Sessions Judge cum Special Judge