[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Sonu vs The State Nct Of Delhi on 1 April, 2026
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 01.04.2026
+ BAIL APPLN. 1355/2025
SONU .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pankaj, Advocate.
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for State
with SI Manoj Kumar, SI Data Ram
and SI Lalit Kumar.
CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 931/2023 of
Police Station Sarai Rohilla for offence under Section
307/195A/506/120B/34 IPC & Section 83 of JJ Act.
1.1 This bail application came up for the first hearing on 07.04.2025
before the predecessor bench and thereafter continued getting adjourned
before different benches. Along with 179 such old pending bail applications,
this application also was transferred to this bench.
BAIL APPLN. 1355/2025 Page 1 of 4 pages
GIRISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec455
69af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH
KATHPALIA
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1557
0996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Digitally Signed Date: 2026.04.01 17:34:46 -07'00'
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:01.04.2026
17:59:56
1.2 Today is the first hearing before me. I have heard learned counsel for
accused/applicant as well as learned APP for State. As regards the IO of the
case, as discussed hereafter, in this case also, the police officials present in
the courtroom tried their best to mislead this Court or at least create
confusion so that the matter gets again adjourned. There are three police
officials present in this matter, none of whom have briefed the learned
prosecutor before commencement of the hearing. Their conduct is described
in paragraph 8 of this order.
2. Broadly speaking, allegation against the accused/applicant is that he
along with co-accused persons threatened an eye witness of a murder case
by way of the co-accused persons assaulting the said eye witness namely,
Iqbal Ahmad at his shop. The accused/applicant was not present at the time
of the said assault, as per prosecution. The accused/applicant was roped in
on the basis of disclosure statements of the alleged assailants.
3. Learned counsel for accused/applicant contends that there is no
evidence against the accused/applicant apart from the disclosure statement,
which is not admissible evidence against him. It is further submitted that
accused/applicant is in jail since 13.01.2024.
4. Learned APP for State opposes the bail application on instructions of
the said three police officials present in court, alleging that at the time of
arrest of the accused/applicant, his mobile phone was seized and the same
was found to contain four videos of reconnaissance of the Tis Hazari Court
Complex, which shows that the accused/applicant and his associates were
BAIL APPLN. 1355/2025 Page 2 of 4 pages
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
5569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
KATHPALIA
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d155
70996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e2
6fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Digitally Signed Date: 2026.04.01 17:34:35 -07'00'
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:01.04.2026
17:59:56
planning to assail the eye witness in court complex and that is a serious
issue.
5. It is pointed out by learned counsel for accused/applicant that after
forensic examination, the FSL report of the said mobile phone reported that
no video/picture was found from the data retrieved from that mobile phone.
6. Since no such video of the alleged reconnaissance was found by FSL
in the mobile phone of the accused/applicant, learned prosecutor in all
fairness admits that there is no cogent evidence to keep the
accused/applicant in jail.
7. On this aspect, SI Manoj Kumar submits that he had personally seized
the said mobile phone and had even examined the said four videos, but he
did not retain mirror image thereof. Not only this, the FSL report is dated
22.08.2025, but admittedly, till date the investigating agency has not made
even a whisper that the FSL report is incorrect.
8. Further, as mentioned above, three police officials have appeared
today to oppose this bail application. Initially, when the FSL report was
pointed out, SI Manoj Kumar stated that he investigated the case only till
arrest of the accused/applicant. At that stage, SI Data Ram came forward
and stated that it is he who is the IO as he filed the chargesheet. On being
called upon to explain as to whether any communication was sent to the
FSL, both of them stated that the IO is on his way with the police file.
Immediately thereafter, SI Lalit Kumar came with the file but stated that he
is not the IO. There is complete confusion at the prosecution side as to who
BAIL APPLN. 1355/2025 Page 3 of 4 pages
GIRISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
9af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH
COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
KATHPALIA
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570
Digitally Signed 996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.04.01 17:34:25 -07'00'
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:01.04.2026
17:59:56
is the IO of the case.
8.1 At this stage, learned APP for State, on instructions of SI Data Ram
submits that there are two more IOs, namely SI Vipin, who filed the FSL
report and SI Devender, who filed the Call Detail Report. But neither of
those IOs have appeared. To say the least, this is not how liberty of an
individual should be dealt with.
9. Considering the above circumstances, I do not find any reason to
deprive further liberty to the accused/applicant. Therefore, the bail
application is allowed and accused/applicant is directed to be released on
bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with
one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
10. A copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the concerned Jail
Superintendent for informing the accused/applicant. As requested by learned
APP for State, a copy of this order be also sent to the DCP (Legal), Delhi
Police through the Standing Counsel for information and necessary action.
GIRISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45
569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
KATHPALIA
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1557
0996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa
, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.04.01 17:34:14 -07'00'
GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
APRIL 1, 2026/as
BAIL APPLN. 1355/2025 Page 4 of 4 pages
