Delhi High Court
Sujeet vs State Govt Nct Of Delhi on 6 May, 2025
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 06.05.2025
+ BAIL APPLN. 357/2025
SUJEET .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nischal Kumar Neeraj, Mr. D.K.
Pathak, Mr. Praveen Mishra and Mr.
Sanat Pandey, Advocates
versus
STATE GOVT NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Richa Dhawan, APP for State
with Inspector Bijender, PS Bindapur
and Inspector Rajpal, Paschim Vihar
Mr. Varun Rana, Advocate for
complainant de facto
CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The accused/applicant suffering incarceration for the past two and a
half years seeks to be released on bail in case FIR No. 718/2022 of PS
Bindapur, Delhi for offence under Sections 302/120B/393/397/34 IPC &
25/27 of the Arms Act.
BAIL APPLN. 357/2025 Page 1 of 6 pages
GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH
KATHPALIA
KATHPALIA Date: 2025.05.06 18:32:17
+05'30'
Digitally Signed
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:06.05.2025
19:09:57
2. I have heard learned counsel for accused/applicant, learned counsel
for complainant de facto and learned APP assisted by Investigating Officer/
Insp. Rajpal.
3. Briefly stated, prosecution case is as follows. On the night intervening
09.10.2022 and 10.10.2022, DD No. 7 and 8 were recorded at PS Bindapur
regarding firing incident at Manas Kunj, Uttam Nagar, Delhi. By way of DD
No. 14A, an information was received from the hospital that an injured
person namely Mohit Arora was brought dead on account of a gunshot
injury. The crime team visited the spot and found one bullet lead, a
motorcycle, a scooty and blood stains, all of which were collected and
seized. Statement of Mr. Rohit Arora, brother of the deceased was recorded,
who stated that on the fateful night, he along with the deceased were going
home from their shop of ladies garments and when they reached near home,
two persons came from the opposite direction on motorcycle and tried to
stop them; that one of the motorcycle-borne persons tried to snatch the
money bag, after which both the brothers fell down from their scooty and
tried to run away but were followed by the assailants, leaving behind their
motorbike and after some distance, one of the assailants fired at the
deceased. The entire incident was captured on CCTV. The accused persons
namely Satender and Mohd. Faizan on their arrest were interrogated and
they disclosed that it is the present accused/applicant who had tipped them
off that the deceased would be carrying huge amount of money. On the basis
of the said disclosure statement, the accused/applicant was arrested.
BAIL APPLN. 357/2025 Page 2 of 6 pages
GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH
KATHPALIA
+05'30'
4. Learned counsel for accused/applicant contends that it is a fit case for
grant of bail because there is no evidence to connect the accused/applicant
with the murder of the deceased.
5. On the other hand, learned Prosecutor strongly opposes the bail
application, contending that gravity of the offence has to be kept in mind.
Learned Prosecutor on instructions of the Investigating Officer submits that
as regards the conspiracy to commit robbery and murder, Call Detail
Records obtained by the Investigating Officer reflect telephonic connectivity
between the accused Satender and the present accused/applicant. It is
submitted that the accused/applicant was employed in the shop of the
deceased, so he was aware about the vulnerability of the deceased. It is
further submitted that Ajeet, brother of the accused/applicant was also found
in the vicinity near the spot of occurrence at the time of the alleged incident.
6. Learned counsel for complainant de facto strongly opposes the bail
application and submits that at least eyewitness Rohit be first allowed to be
completely examined.
7. So far as testimony of Rohit is concerned, he is the alleged eyewitness
who was accompanying his brother, the deceased at the time of the alleged
incident. Rohit is an eyewitness of only the alleged firing incident and not
any other fact, including the alleged conspiracy between the main assailants
BAIL APPLN. 357/2025 Page 3 of 6 pages
GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH
KATHPALIA
KATHPALIA Date: 2025.05.06 18:31:45
+05'30'
Digitally Signed
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:06.05.2025
19:09:57
Satender, Faizan and the accused/applicant. Before the predecessor bench,
the matter was adjourned twice, awaiting the testimony of Rohit but the
same remains yet to be concluded.
8. Indeed, gravity of the offence is certainly a vital factor while
considering a bail application. But that is not the only factor to be kept in
mind. The Court also has to be conscious about some prima facie
evidence/material connecting the accused/applicant with the alleged offence.
As reflected from previous record, according to prosecution, the only
evidence connecting the accused/applicant with conspiracy to commit
robbery and murder is his telephonic connectivity with the co-accused
Satender. But even that connectivity according to prosecution is only a
single phone call, that too about seven hours prior to the alleged incident.
9. Most importantly, despite spending substantial time flipping through
the investigation file, the Investigating Officer could not show the Customer
Application Form (CAF) to show that the phone call relied upon by
prosecution side involved telephones owned by both Satender and the
accused/applicant or either of them. The Investigating Officer, after not
being able to show CAF of either the phone allegedly belonging to Satender
or the phone allegedly belonging to the accused/applicant, submitted that he
had collected the CAF but is not carrying the same in the investigation file.
But even the list of documents in the chargesheet does not make any
mention of the alleged CAF, which shows that CAF was never collected by
BAIL APPLN. 357/2025 Page 4 of 6 pages
GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH
KATHPALIA
KATHPALIA Date: 2025.05.06 18:31:23
+05'30'
the Investigating Officer. That being so, it cannot be ascertain prima facie if
the telephone call relied upon by prosecution was between the accused
Satender and the present accused/applicant.
10. In other words, even according to prosecution case, a single phone
call is the only evidence of conspiracy between the accused/applicant and
the assailants on the spot; but even that phone call cannot be connected with
the accused/applicant and/or either of the assailants. Prima facie, as on date
there is no reliable evidence of conspiracy against the accused/applicant.
11. However, I must add a cautious rider that the above discussion is for
the limited purposes of ascertaining as to whether liberty of the
accused/applicant, who is suffering incarceration for the past two and a half
years be further curtailed. The learned trial court shall take final decision on
trial without getting influenced by the above discussion.
12. Considering the above circumstances, the bail application is allowed
and the accused/applicant is directed to be released on bail subject to his
furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
13. At request of learned Prosecutor, it is specifically directed that the
accused/applicant shall in no manner try to contact any of the family
members of the deceased and any of the witnesses of the prosecution,
otherwise the bail shall be cancelled. Further, as requested by learned
BAIL APPLN. 357/2025 Page 5 of 6 pages
GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH
KATHPALIA
KATHPALIA Date: 2025.05.06 18:31:06
+05'30'
counsel for complainant de facto, expressing apprehension of the
complainant de facto, it is also directed that the accused/applicant shall not
visit the area of Manas Kunj, Uttam Nagar for any purpose whatsoever.
14. A copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the concerned Jail
Superintendent for informing the accused/applicant.
GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA
KATHPALIA Date: 2025.05.06
18:30:44 +05'30'
GIRISH KATHPALIA, J
MAY 06, 2025
'rs'
BAIL APPLN. 357/2025 Page 6 of 6 pages
