Delhi High Court
Suraj Kanojia vs State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi on 25 June, 2025
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 25.06.2025
+ BAIL APPLN. 1713/2025
SURAJ KANOJIA .... Applicant
versus
STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI .... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case
For the Applicant : Mr. Mohit Mathur, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Harsh Gautam and Mr. Keshav Pratap
Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP for
the State with SI Rahul Rathi PS:
Sangam Vihar, New Delhi.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
JUDGMENT
TEJAS KARIA, J
INTRODUCTION:
1. The present application has been filed by the Petitioner/Applicant
under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
(‘BNSS’) [earlier Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(‘CrPC‘)] read with Sections 187(3)/528/529 of the BNSS [earlier SectionsSignature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 1713/2025 Page 1 of 17
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.06.2025
15:59:52
167(2)/482/483 of the CrPC] seeking Regular Bail in the FIR No. 512/2024
registered at Police Station – Sangam Vihar, New Delhi (‘FIR’) under
Sections 109(1)/331(6)/326(g)/3(5)/324(6) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 (‘BNS’) and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
2. It is alleged by the Complainant in the instant FIR that on 25.10.2024
around midnight, someone hit the gate of his house with force. When he saw
outside the window, he noticed that it was the Applicant along with three
other co-accused persons, who were throwing stones at the main gate of his
house while also hurtling abuses.
3. It is alleged that the Applicant also had a firearm in his hand and fired
a bullet at the gate of the house. Thereafter, the main door of the house
opened and the Applicant turned the said firearm towards the Complainant
and fired a bullet. It is further alleged that the Applicant and the other co-
accused persons also damaged household articles of the Complainant.
4. Subsequently, enquiry was conducted by the Investigation Officer
(‘IO’) and after completion of spot inspection, a seizure memo was prepared
which listed seizure of a few empty cartridges and one live cartridge at the
site of the incident. The said incident was also recorded in the PWD’s
government installed CCTV cameras, which was shown to the Complainant,
who identified the Applicant and other co-accused involved in the
commission of the aforesaid acts.
5. Thereafter, search for the accused persons was conducted and three
co-accused persons were arrested. However, search conducted for the
Applicant yielded no results. The chargesheet dated 02.01.2025 was filed by
Investigating Agency, which specifically recorded that despite extensiveSignature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 1713/2025 Page 2 of 17
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.06.2025
15:59:52
efforts to locate the Applicant, he could not be found as he was absconding
and evading arrest.
6. Ultimately, the Applicant was arrested on 12.01.2025 in a different
case in FIR No. 09/2025 under Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act registered
at Police Station – Crime Branch. A production warrant for the Applicant
was moved before the Court concerned and after obtaining permission on
15.01.2025, he was interrogated and subsequently, arrested. A
Supplementary Chargesheet dated 14.02.2025 was filed against the
Applicant under Sections 109(1)/331(6)/326(g)/3(5)/324(6) of the BNS and
Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
7. A bail application was moved by the Applicant before the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-06 (‘ASJ’), Saket Courts, New Delhi, however
the same was dismissed vide Order dated 24.03.2025. Thereafter, an
application was moved by the Applicant before the learned ASJ under
Section 187(3) of the BNSS seeking default bail, and the same was also
dismissed vide Order dated 21.04.2025. Hence, the present application
before this Court.
SUBMISSIONS BY THE APPLICANT:
8. Mr. Mohit Mathur, learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant
submitted that Section 193 of the BNSS does not contemplate a piecemeal
investigation and filing of an incomplete chargesheet before the Court. It is
further submitted that till the investigation is completed, any report sent by
the IO shall not be a Police Report within the meaning of Section 193(3) of
BNSS.
Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 1713/2025 Page 3 of 17
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.06.2025
15:59:52
9. It is submitted that a cognizance taken by the learned Trial Court on
an incomplete chargesheet without the sanction order under Section 39 of
the Arms Act, 1959 and the order directing committal of the proceedings to
the learned ASJ are bad in law due to which the right of the present
Applicant to be released on default bail got scuttled.
10. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the Applicant that the
learned JMFC, South, Saket Court, Delhi had no territorial jurisdiction to
take cognizance of the offence on an incomplete chargesheet filed by the
investigating agency as the investigation was not complete and custody of
the accused was not permissible beyond the statutory period of ninety (9)
days from the date of his arrest. Accordingly, the Applicant had right to be
released on bail.
11. It is further submitted that the learned ASJ erred in not appreciating
that an incomplete chargesheet cannot be treated as a police report as
contemplated under Section 190 of BNSS. The learned ASJ failed to
appreciate the fact that the true test regarding a complete chargesheet is that
the report filed by the police official must be such that the learned
Magistrate could straightaway proceed to take cognizance under Section 210
of BNSS and then commit to the learned Sessions Court under Section 232
of BNSS. However, in the present case, the learned JMFC had no territorial
jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence on the basis of an incomplete
chargesheet in the absence of a sanction order under Section 39 of the Arms
Act, 1959.
12. The learned senior counsel for the Applicant submitted that it is a
settled law that a piecemeal investigation and filing of incomplete
chargesheet before the Court is not stipulated under Section 173 of CrPCSignature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 1713/2025 Page 4 of 17
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.06.2025
15:59:52
[Section 193 of BNSS]. It is only filing of a final report after the completion
of the entire investigation of the case in respect of all offences, especially
when there are several offences involved in a case, is required under the said
provision.
13. It was further submitted that an investigating agency cannot
circumvent Section 187(3) of BNSS [Section 167(2) of CrPC] by filing an
incomplete chargesheet. The learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant relied
on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI,
2022 SCC OnLine SC 825 and M Ravindran v. The Intelligence Officer,
(2021) 2 SCC 485 to submit that the object behind Section 187(3) of the
BNSS is to ensure an expeditious investigation and a fair trial, and the same
cannot be defeated by filing an incomplete chargesheet.
14. The learned senior counsel for the Applicant submitted that the
chargesheet cannot be filed within the meaning of Section 193(3) of BNSS
[Section 173(2) of CrPC] until the investigation is completed. Any report
sent before the investigation is completed shall not be a police report within
the meaning of Section 193(3) of BNSS [Section 173(2) of CrPC].
15. It was submitted that the chargesheet in the present case was filed
without sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act, 1959 which is
mandatory to prosecute under Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959. It is
submitted that in the present case, the prosecution has filed an incomplete
chargesheet within the prescribed period in order to defeat the right of the
Applicant to default/statutory bail under Section 187(3) of the BNSS and
that cognizance of an offence cannot be taken on the basis of an incomplete
chargesheet.
Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 1713/2025 Page 5 of 17
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.06.2025
15:59:52
16. The learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant has relied upon the
decision of Supreme Court in M. Ravindran v. The Intelligence Officer,
(2021) 2 SCC 485, which examined the practice of filing preliminary
chargesheet and observed that Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950
provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty
except in accordance with the procedure established by law. As held in
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248, such procedure
cannot be arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable. It was held that the safeguard of
default bail contained in proviso to Section 167(2) of CrPC [Section 187(3)
of BNSS] is intrinsically linked to Article 21 of the Constitution of India,
1950 and is nothing but the legislative exposition of the constitutional
safeguard that no person shall be detained except in accordance with rule of
law.
17. It was submitted that the Applicant has deep roots in society and has
never been found guilty of violating the law. It was also submitted that the
Applicant satisfies the triple test for the grant of bail, as set out in various
judgments of the Supreme Court.
18. Therefore, in view of the foregoing submissions, it was prayed that
the present application be allowed and the Applicant be enlarged on Bail in
the instant case.
SUBMISSIONS BY THE RESPONDENT:
19. Per contra, Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State (‘APP’) for the State vehemently opposed the
present application and submitted that the Applicant is charged with heinous
offences including, inter alia, attempt to cause death and use of illegalSignature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 1713/2025 Page 6 of 17
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.06.2025
15:59:52
firearms. Hence, no leniency should be accorded to the Applicant at this
stage.
20. It was submitted that the Complainant in his statement under Section
180 of the BNSS, specifically named the Applicant as the person who fired
gunshots towards him with the intention to kill. It was also submitted that
the crime scene evidence, including the recovered cartridges and damage to
property, corroborate the Complainant’s statement.
21. The learned APP submitted that given the armed nature of the assault,
the Applicant is likely to threaten or influence the prosecution witness. It
was further submitted that there is also a strong likelihood that the Applicant
may abscond if he is enlarged on bail. As the Applicant is named in other
criminal proceedings, there is also a strong likelihood that he may commit
similar offences if he is released on bail.
22. It was submitted that the chargesheet against the Applicant was filed
within the prescribed period of ninety days under Section 187(3) of the
BNSS and mere pendency of a procedural formality of sanction under
Section 39 of the Arms Act, 1959 does not entitle the accused to default bail
under Section 187(3) of the BNSS as it is available only when the
chargesheet is not filed within the stipulated time.
23. It was submitted by the learned APP that the law is settled that
cognizance is taken of the offence and not merely of an individual accused.
The sanction under Arms Act, 1959 does not affect the cognizance of the
offence under BNSS, which is independent and cognizable.
24. The learned APP has also relied upon the case of M. Ravindran
(supra) to submit that the default bail is available only when no chargesheet
Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 1713/2025 Page 7 of 17
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.06.2025
15:59:52
is filed within the stipulated time and not when an incomplete chargesheet is
filed and cognizance is taken.
25. The learned APP has also relied upon the decision of the Supreme
Court in Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam, (2017) 15 SCC 67, which
held that the right to default bail arises only when the prosecution fails to
file a chargesheet within ninety days and no cognizance is taken.
26. The learned APP has also relied upon the decision in Hitendra Vishnu
Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, (1994) 4 SCC 602 in which the Supreme
Court has held that a sanction under a special law does not vitiate
proceedings under general criminal law, unless specifically made mandatory
for cognizance.
27. In view of the foregoing submissions, it was prayed that the present
application be dismissed.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:
28. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
29. Section 187(3) of the BNSS reads as under:
“(3) The Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person,
beyond the period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds
exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the
accused person in custody under this sub-section for a total period
exceeding–
(i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence
punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment
for a term of ten years or more;
(ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence,
and, on the expiry of the said period of ninety days, or sixty
days, as the case may be, the accused person shall be released
on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every
person released on bail under this sub-section shall be deemedSignature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 1713/2025 Page 8 of 17
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.06.2025
15:59:52
to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXV for
the purposes of that Chapter.”
30. In various judgments of the Supreme Court, it has clearly been held
that Section 187(3) of the BNSS [earlier Section 167(2) of the CrPC] seeks
to protect the fundamental right to life and personal liberty of the accused
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
31. In the case of Sanjay Kumar Pundeer v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023
SCC OnLine Del 5696, this Court held as under:
“10. The fundamental right to personal life and liberty under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India and its co-relation with 167(2) of the CrPC has
been, over the years, clearly established by way of judicial precedents of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as well as various High Courts. The
right of an accused to default bail under Section 167(2) of
the CrPC would arise in a case where the chargesheet is not filed within
the stipulated period. The other circumstance giving rise to the right to
default bail would be in case where the prosecution files a preliminary or
incomplete chargesheet, within the period prescribed for offences
mentioned therein and in that process, defeating the right of the accused
to statutory bail.”
32. From the above judgment, it is clear that if an incomplete chargesheet
is filed by the prosecution, it gives rise to the right of default bail even if the
same is filed within the prescribed period. However, in the present case, the
Supplementary Chargesheet was filed against the Applicant within the
stipulated period under Section 187(3) of the BNSS. Despite that, it is the
Applicant’s case that the said chargesheet was incomplete as it was filed by
the investigating agency without the mandatory sanction under Section 39 of
the Arms Act, 1959 for prosecution under Sections 25/29 of the Arms Act,
1959. Hence, the Applicant has contended that he is entitled to default bail
under Section 187(3) of the BNSS.
33. Hence, the central issue before this Court for determination is whether
Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 1713/2025 Page 9 of 17
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.06.2025
15:59:52
a chargesheet filed by the investigating agency without the sanction under
Section 39 of the Arms Act, 1959, renders it incomplete.
34. In this regard, this Court in Nitin Nagpal v. State, 2006 SCC OnLine
Del 704 has held as under:
“9. Mr. Pawan Sharma next submitted that the statement of the injured
had not been recorded inasmuch as the doctor had opined that the said
injured was not fit to make any statement. In these circumstances,
therefore, the non-filing of the statement of the injured could not be
regarded as an incomplete challan been filed and/or the investigation not
having been completed. He also submitted that the factum that the
Sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act had not been obtained did
not mean that an incomplete challan had been filed. According to him,
the investigation had been completed and the question of sanction did
not come in the way of the filing of the police report/challan which had
been done within 90 days. Insofar as these submissions with regard to
the statement of the injured not being recorded as he was medically
unfit and the non-filing of the sanction under the Arms Act, 1959, I am
in agreement with the learned counsel for the State and no further
discussion is necessary. The statement would not be taken as it was not
possible. The non-obtaining of sanction under the Arms Act, 1959 may
have a legal effect qua the prosecution but would not entail that the
challan was incomplete or that investigation was not over. However, the
aspects of the case with regard to the CFSL Report and the question of
cognizance not having been taken till 18.10.2005 requires further
discussion.”
35. In the case of Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain v. State of
Maharashtra, (2013) 3 SCC 77, the Supreme Court held that the grant of
sanction is not contemplated under Section 167 of the CrPC. The relevant
extract of the said judgment is reproduced as under:
“17. In our view, grant of sanction is nowhere contemplated under
Section 167 CrPC. What the said section contemplates is the completion
of investigation in respect of different types of cases within a stipulated
period and the right of an accused to be released on bail on the failure of
the investigating authorities to do so. The scheme of the provisions
relating to remand of an accused, first during the stage of investigation
and, thereafter, after cognizance is taken, indicates that the legislatureSignature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 1713/2025 Page 10 of 17
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.06.2025
15:59:52
intended investigation of certain crimes to be completed within 60 days
and offences punishable with death, imprisonment for life or
imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years, within 90 days. In the
event, the investigation is not completed by the investigating authorities,
the accused acquires an indefeasible right to be granted bail, if he offers
to furnish bail. Accordingly, if on either the 61st day or the 91st day, an
accused makes an application for being released on bail in default of
charge-sheet having been filed, the court has no option but to release the
accused on bail. The said provision has been considered and interpreted
in various cases, such as the ones referred to hereinbefore. Both the
decisions in Natabar Parida case [(1975) 2 SCC 220 : 1975 SCC (Cri)
484] and in Sanjay Dutt case [(1994) 5 SCC 410 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 1433]
were instances where the charge-sheet was not filed within the period
stipulated in Section 167(2) CrPC and an application having been made
for grant of bail prior to the filing of the charge-sheet, this Court held that
the accused enjoyed an indefeasible right to grant of bail, if such an
application was made before the filing of the charge-sheet, but once the
charge-sheet was filed, such right came to an end and the accused would
be entitled to pray for regular bail on merits.”
36. Further, the Supreme Court in the case of Judgebir Singh v. NIA,
(2023) 17 SCC 48 referred to the judgment in Suresh Kumar (supra) and
held that a chargesheet filed without sanction cannot be treated as an
incomplete chargesheet and does not entitle an accused to a default bail as
contemplated under Section 167(2) of the CrPC [now Section 187(3) of the
BNSS]. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced below:
“45. We find no merit in the principal argument canvassed on behalf of
the appellants that a charge-sheet filed without sanction is an incomplete
charge-sheet which could be termed as not in consonance with sub-
section (5) of Section 173CrPC. It was conceded by the learned counsel
appearing for the appellants that the charge-sheet was filed well within
the statutory time period i.e. 180 days, however, the court concerned
could not have taken cognizance of such charge-sheet in the absence of
the orders of sanction not being a part of such charge-sheet. Whether the
sanction is required or not under a statute, is a question that has to be
considered at the time of taking cognizance of the offence and not during
inquiry or investigation. There is a marked distinction in the stage of
investigation and prosecution. The prosecution starts when the cognizance
of offence is taken. It is also to be kept in mind that cognizance is taken of
the offence and not of the offender. It cannot be said that obtainingSignature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 1713/2025 Page 11 of 17
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.06.2025
15:59:52
sanction from the competent authorities or the authorities concerned is
part of investigation. Sanction is required only to enable the court to take
cognizance of the offence. The court may take cognizance of the offence
after the sanction order was produced before the court, but the moment,
the final report is filed along with the documents that may be relied on by
the prosecution, then the investigation will be deemed to have been
completed. Taking cognizance is entirely different from completing the
investigation. To complete the investigation and file a final report is a
duty of the investigating agency, but taking cognizance of the offence is
the power of the court. The court in a given case, may not take cognizance
of the offence for a particular period of time even after filing of the final
report. In such circumstance, the accused concerned cannot claim their
indefeasible right under Section 167(2)CrPC for being released on default
bail. What is contemplated under Section 167(2)CrPC is that the
Magistrate or Designated Court (as the case may be) has no powers to
order detention of the accused beyond the period of 180 days or 90 days
or 60 days as the case may be. If the investigation is concluded within the
prescribed period, no right accrues to the accused concerned to be
released on bail under the proviso to Section 167(2)CrPC.
46. Once a final report has been filed with all the documents on which the
prosecution proposes to rely, the investigation shall be deemed to have
been completed. After completing investigation and submitting a final
report to the court, the investigating officer can send a copy of the final
report along with the evidence collected and other materials to the
sanctioning authority to enable the sanctioning authority to apply his
mind to accord sanction. According sanction is the duty of the sanctioning
authority who is not connected with the investigation at all. In case the
sanctioning authority takes some time to accord sanction, that does not
vitiate the final report filed by the investigating agency before the court.
Section 173CrPC does not speak about the sanction order at all. Section
167CrPC also speaks only about investigation and not about cognizance
by the Magistrate. Therefore, once a final report has been filed, that is the
proof of completion of investigation and if final report is filed within the
period of 180 days or 90 days or 60 days from the initial date of remand
of accused concerned, he cannot claim that a right has accrued to him to
be released on bail for want of filing of sanction order.
xxxxx
51. The charge-sheet is nothing but a final report of police officer under
Section 173(2)CrPC. Section 173(2)CrPC provides that on completion of
the investigation, the police officer investigating into a cognizable offence
shall submit a report. The report must be in the form prescribed by the
State Government, stating therein
(a) the names of the parties;
(b) the nature of the information;
Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 1713/2025 Page 12 of 17
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.06.2025
15:59:52
(c) the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the
circumstances of the case
(d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by
whom;
(e) whether the accused has been arrested;
(f) whether he had been released on his bond and, if so, whether with
or without sureties; and
(g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under Section 170.
52. As observed by this Court in Satya Narain Musadi v. State of
Bihar [Satya Narain Musadi v. State of Bihar, (1980) 3 SCC 152 : 1980
SCC (Cri) 660] , SCC at p. 157 that the statutory requirement of the
report under Section 173(2)CrPC would be complied with if the various
details prescribed therein are included in the report. This report is an
intimation to the Magistrate that upon investigation into a cognizable
offence the Investigating Officer has been able to procure sufficient
evidence for the court to inquire into the offence and the necessary
information is being sent to the court. In fact, the report under Section
173(2)CrPC purports to be an opinion of the Investigating Officer that as
far as he is concerned he has been able to procure sufficient material for
the trial of the accused by the court. The report is complete if it is
accompanied with all the documents and statements of witnesses as
required by Section 175(5)CrPC. Nothing more need be stated in the
report of the Investigating Officer. It is also not necessary that all the
details of the offence must be stated. The details of the offence are
required to be proved to bring home the guilt to the accused at a later
stage i.e. in the course of the trial of the case by adducing acceptable
evidence. (See K. Veeraswami v. Union of India [K. Veeraswami v. Union
of India, (1991) 3 SCC 655 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 734] .)
53. The maximum period of 180 days which is being granted to the
investigating agency to complete the investigation in the case wherein the
prosecution is for the offence under UAPA is not something in the form of
a package that everything has to be completed including obtaining of
sanction within this period of 180 days. As observed above, the
investigating agency has nothing to do with sanction. Sanction is
altogether a different process. Sanction is accorded, based on the
materials collected by the investigating agency which forms the part of the
final report under Section 173CrPC. The investigating agency gets full
180 days to complete the investigation. To say that obtaining of sanction
and placing the same along with the charge-sheet should be done within
the period of 180 days is something which is not only contrary to the
provisions of law discussed above, but is inconceivable.”
Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 1713/2025 Page 13 of 17
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.06.2025
15:59:52
37. In view of the above judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court,
the filing of the chargesheet against the Applicant in the present case,
without sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act, does not render the said
chargesheet incomplete under Section 193(3) of the BNSS. Consequently,
the case of the Applicant that it is entitled to default bail under Section
187(3) of the BNSS, is without any merit as obtaining sanction is not
contemplated under the said provision.
38. In the alternative, the Applicant has also approached this Court
seeking regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS. It is the Applicant’s
case that it satisfies the triple test for the grant of bail, as has been laid down
in multiple judgments of the Supreme Court.
39. The Supreme Court in the case of P. Chidambaram v. CBI, (2020) 13
SCC 337 laid down the well-settled principles to be considered for the grant
of bail. The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced below:
“21. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of the
well-settled principles having regard to the facts and circumstances of
each case. The following factors are to be taken into consideration while
considering an application for bail:
(i) the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment in
the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon
by the prosecution;
(ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or
apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses;
(iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the
accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence;
(iv) character, behaviour and standing of the accused and the
circumstances which are peculiar to the accused;
(v) larger interest of the public or the State and similar other
considerations.
[Vide Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Prahlad Singh
Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 4 SCC 280 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 674]”
40. This Court has considered the following factors that have a bearing on
Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 1713/2025 Page 14 of 17
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.06.2025
15:59:52
the determination of the present case:
a. The role of the Applicant in the present case is that he fired a
firearm towards the Complainant in an attempt to kill him,
which is corroborated by the footage of the CCTV installed in
the vicinity and the seizure of cartridges at the site of the
incident. The accusations levelled against the Applicant in the
present case are grave and serious in nature.
b. The incident took place on 25.10.2024 and while the other co-
accused were arrested soon thereafter, the Chargesheet dated
02.01.2025 clearly mentions that the Applicant was absconding
and evading arrest, and that he could not be found despite
extensive efforts undertaken to locate him.
c. It is recorded in the Supplementary Chargesheet dated
14.02.2025 that the Applicant was ultimately arrested on
12.01.2025 in a different case in FIR No. 09/2025 registered at
Police Station – Crime Branch, under Section 25/54/59 of the
Arms Act.
d. The nature of the offence and the punishment provided thereof
are serious in nature. The role of the Applicant is captured in
the CCTV footage. There is a possibility that the Applicant may
threaten or influence the witnesses and also influence their
testimonies as they are residing in the neighbourhood of the
Applicant.
e. The Applicant had allegedly fired gunshots on the main gate of
the household of the Complainant as well as towards him. The
Applicant appears to be the mastermind behind the incident in
Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 1713/2025 Page 15 of 17
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.06.2025
15:59:52
question. All the recovered exhibits, including the cartridges,
the damage door piece and recovered fire arm have been sent to
the FSL, Rohini.
f. There are multiple eye-witnesses including the Complainant
and the independent witnesses point towards active
involvement of the Applicant in the commission of the offence,
which shows that the Applicant was directly involved in the
crime.
g. The Complainant has specifically named the Applicant in his
statement under Section 180 of BNSS stating that the Applicant
fired the gunshots at the residence with the intention to kill the
Complainant.
h. Given the armed nature of the offence, the Applicant can be
threat to the key prosecution witnesses and also will be a flight
risk or commit similar offences, as the Applicant has been
previously named in other criminal proceedings.
i. There is no parity with the co-accused as the Applicant fired the
gunshots, which is not comparable with the other co-accused
who did not fire or enter the Complainant’s premises.
j. The offences are of serious nature including of unlawful
assembly, grievous hurt using dangerous weapons, attempt to
cause death and use of illegal firearms.
41. Considering the above factors and the grave and serious nature of the
offence alleged against the Applicant in the FIR, in addition to apprehension
of absconding if released on bail, this is not a fit case to enlarge the
Applicant on bail under Section 483 read with Section 187(3) and Sections
Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 1713/2025 Page 16 of 17
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.06.2025
15:59:52
528/529 of the BNSS.
42. Accordingly, the present Application is hereby dismissed.
TEJAS KARIA, J
(VACATION JUDGE)
JUNE 25, 2025/ „A‟
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 1713/2025 Page 17 of 17
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.06.2025
15:59:52