Delhi High Court
Mohd Nasim vs The State Nct Of Delhi on 21 March, 2025
$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 21.03.2025
,,,,,,,,,,
+ BAIL APPLN. 944/2025
MOHD NASIM .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Deepak Kohli, Adv.
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Aman Usman, APP for the
State.
Insp Rizwan Khan, PS Amar
Colony.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
1. This is an application filed by the petitioner under Section 482,
BNSS (Old Section 438 Cr. PC), seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR
bearing No. 94/2024, under Section 302/114/34 IPC, registered with
PS Amar Colony, Delhi.
2. Mr. Kohli, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is not named in the FIR. There is no specific allegation
against him in the FIR. Till date, no notice has been served upon the
petitioner by the Investigating Officer nor any call was made to the
petitioner on his phone by the IO. Investigation is complete and charge
sheet has been filed against the other co-accused persons. Nothing
incriminating has been found against the present petitioner. Charge
sheet does not even remotely connect the petitioner in the present FIR
except showing that petitioner is an absconder without any basis.
3. It is further submitted that co-accused have since been enlarged
on bail by the learned trial court. It has been submitted that petitioner,
since the day of the alleged incident, is out and has never even tried to
approach any of the witnesses, so much so, he was not even aware
about his implication in the FIR in question.
4. The application has been opposed by the learned Public
Prosecutor, submitting that there is sufficient evidence against the
present petitioner. The CCTV footage shows the presence of the
petitioner near the place of occurrence. The CDR reveals the presence
of the accused at the spot. It is submitted that petitioner has not joined
the investigation and has tried to evade his arrest. He is required for
custodial interrogation for the recovery of his wearing clothes and the
weapon of offence.
5. As per prosecution version, the dead body of the victim, who
was later identified as Hussain Lehri @ Guddu, was recovered from
the road in front of Shop No. M-41, Lajpat Nagar-IV. No eye witness
of the incident was found at the spot. FIR was registered under Section
302 IPC. The footage of the CCTV camera installed at M-17, Lajpat
Nagar-IV was analyzed. On analysis, it was found that the deceased
was seen going towards shop No. M-15, which was behind shop No.
M-13. Petitioner and other co-accused persons are also seen in the
footage.
6. During investigation, the mobile phone numbers of the
petitioner and other co-accused persons were obtained and were
analyzed and on such analysis, it was found that co-accused Ghulam
was called by his worker at 1.30 am and since thereafter, the location
of Ghulam was found at the place of incident till about 1.40 am. The
location of the petitioner was also found at the place of incident.
7. Prosecution is strongly relying on the evidence of CDR and the
CCTV footage of the area, which shows the presence of the accused
near the place of crime. In one of the photographs shown by the
Investigating Officer, the present petitioner can be seen walking with
one of the co-accused, who was having a danda in his hand.
8. The petitioner is required for the purpose of recovery of danda
and the clothes which he was wearing on the date of incident.
Admittedly, he has not joined the investigation and as informed by
Investigating Officer, he has already obtained non-bailable warrants
against the petitioner.
9. Admittedly, all the other co-accused have since been granted
bail, but petitioner cannot claim parity, inasmuch as, they have been
granted regular bail after they had already joined investigation.
10. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, and in
particular the fact that petitioner may be required for the purpose of
custodial interrogation, in my view, this is not a fit case for grant of
pre-arrest bail.
11. The application is therefore dismissed.
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
MARCH 21, 2025
RM
