Delhi High Court – Orders
Anup Gupta vs State Nct Of Delhi on 29 July, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 1277/2025
ANUP GUPTA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sachin Dev, Advocate
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for the
State with Insp. Brahma Dutta
Vishnoi, PS Ghazipur, Delhi
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 29.07.2025
1. The present application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (erstwhile Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 19732) seeks regular bail in the proceedings arising
from FIR No. 93/2023 registered at P.S. Gazipur, for the offences under
Sections 302, 120-B, 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case of the Prosecution are as follows:
2.1. On 21st March, 2023, GD No. 82A was recorded at P.S. Gazipur
regarding the admission of Bhanu Singh, aged 20 years, to LBS Hospital
vide MLC No. 1555/2023. He had reportedly sustained stab injuries and was
brought to the hospital by his friend Farman. The matter was assigned to SI
Vishal, who reached the hospital; however, the injured was declared unfit to
give a statement.
2.2. The Investigating Officer met a friend of the injured, who informed
him that Bhanu Singh had been attacked and stabbed by 6-7 individuals1
“BNSS”
2
“Cr.P.C.”
3
“IPC”
BAIL APPLN. 1277/2025 Page 1 of 6
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 31/07/2025 at 21:55:58
armed with knives near Kondali Bridge, Delhi, after which the assailants
fled the scene. Subsequently, an eyewitness, Md. Shahnewaz @ Sonu (the
Complainant), recorded his statement, asserting that he could identify the
perpetrators. Based on his statement, the subject FIR was registered, and
investigation commenced. During the night of 21st/22nd March 2023,
Safdarjung Hospital informed the police that the victim had succumbed to
his injuries. Consequently, Section 307 IPC was replaced by Section 302
IPC in the case.
2.3. During the course of investigation, one Child in Conflict with Law 4
‘H’ was apprehended on 22nd March, 2023. He disclosed the names of other
individuals allegedly involved in the offence, identifying them as CCLs
‘Sm’, ‘V’, ‘HS’, ‘G’, ‘PK’, ‘A’, and one Anoop (the Applicant). He stated
that the group had assembled at Kondali Mor to take revenge on the
deceased, an auto-rickshaw driver, who had previously supported some boys
from Khora during a quarrel that had occurred after school hours involving
him and his friends. In that prior altercation, his friend, CCL ‘HS’, sustained
injuries; however, no police complaint was lodged in connection with that
incident.
2.4. Following the aforesaid altercation, all the accused conspired to take
revenge. Subsequently, CCL ‘HS’ returned home, while the remaining seven
accused, including the Applicant, proceeded to Kondali Pul. There, they
spotted the deceased, who attempted to flee upon seeing them, however the
accused followed and apprehended him. It is alleged that the Applicant held
the deceased’s hands while CCL ‘Sm’ inflicted knife blows on his person.
When other auto-rickshaw drivers arrived at the scene, the accused fled the
4
“CCL”
BAIL APPLN. 1277/2025 Page 2 of 6
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 31/07/2025 at 21:55:58
scene.
2.5. Subsequently, all the seven CCLs were apprehended. During
interrogation, CCL ‘S’ disclosed that both CCL ‘V’ and the Applicant had
held the deceased’s hands at the time of the incident.
2.6. During further investigation, it was discovered that CDRs indicate
that the Applicant was in continuous contact with CCLs ‘S’ and ‘HS’ on the
day of the incident. The location of the Applicant’s mobile number (SDR of
which belongs to the Applicant’s mother), places the device near the scene
of the incident at the relevant time. It was further revealed that the Applicant
switched off this mobile phone following the incident. Thereafter, he
purcahsed a new SIM card in his own name, which he used in the same
handset that had been in use at the time of the incident.
2.7. The Applicant participated in a judicial Test Identification Parade,5
and was correctly identified by the Complainant/eyewitness. Furthermore,
the Complainant supported the case of the Prosecution in his testimony
before the Trial Court.
2.8. Upon completion of the investigation, a Preliminary Inquiry Report
was submitted before the Juvenile Justice Board-IV against all seven CCLs
involved. A chargesheet was filed against the Applicant, and on 28 th
November, 2023, the Trial Court framed charges under Sections 302 read
with 120B and 149 of the IPC against him.
3. In the aforesaid backdrop, counsel for the Applicant urges the
following grounds seeking grant of regular bail:
3.1. The Applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and has
remained in judicial custody since 9th June, 2023. The chargesheet has5
“TIP”
BAIL APPLN. 1277/2025 Page 3 of 6
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 31/07/2025 at 21:55:58
already been filed, and the public witnesses have been examined.
Accordingly, further incarceration of the Applicant would serve no purpose
and would amount to punitive detention. Moreover, since the material public
witnesses have been examined, the possibility of the Applicant tampering
with evidence or attempting to influence witnesses stands significantly
diminished.
3.2. Out of the three public witnesses, two, namely Farman (PW-6) and
Raja (PW-9), have not supported the case of the Prosecution. Furthermore,
the Complainant (PW-4), who purportedly identified the Applicant during
the TIP, had previously stated under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that the Applicant
was not present at the scene at the time of the alleged incident.
3.3. In his examination-in-chief, PW-4 stated, “6-7 boys followed Bhanu.
Raja, Farman and me also followed them. One person caught hold the hand
of Bhanu from one side and another boy caught hold hand from other side.
3-4 boys told to kill Bhanu and one boy was giving knife blows to Bhanu.”
Pertinently, PW-4 merely identified the Applicant as one of the alleged
assailants, without attributing any specific role or act to him in the
commission of the offence, thereby casting serious doubt about his actual
presence at the scene of the alleged incident.
3.4. Further, in his cross-examination, PW-4 admitted that he was carrying
a mobile phone at the time of the alleged incident. Despite this, he neither
contacted the police immediately, nor reported the incident while returning
from LBS Hospital, even though a police station is situated between the
scene of the incident and the hospital. This inaction on the part of PW-4
undermines the credibility of his testimony.
3.5. The Applicant has no prior criminal antecedents. Accordingly, in
BAIL APPLN. 1277/2025 Page 4 of 6
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 31/07/2025 at 21:55:58
view of the facts and circumstances stated above, the Applicant should be
granted regular bail.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for the State,
opposes the present bail application. He submits that the Applicant has been
implicated in a brutal murder case, which entails capital punishment or life
imprisonment. He further states that the Applicant’s involvement in the
alleged offence is supported not only by the testimony of eye-witnesses, but
also by circumstantial evidence, including CDR analysis of the mobile
number allegedly used by the Applicant. The CDRs reveal that the
Applicant was in constant touch with the co-accused and was present at or
near the scene of the incident at the relevant time. Accordingly, he urges, the
Applicant should not be released on bail.
5. The Court has carefully considered the rival submissions advanced by
the parties. At the outset, it is observed that the Applicant primarily seeks to
rely upon certain inconsistencies and alleged contradictions in the testimony
of the Complainant (PW-4) to seek regular bail. However, it is well-settled
that at the stage of considering a bail application, the Court is not to
undertake a detailed evaluation of the evidence on record or conduct a mini-
trial. The scope of consideration is limited to forming a prima facie view
based on the material available, as rendering findings on the merits of the
case, at this stage, may risk prejudicing the case of either party at trial.
Accordingly, the reliance placed by the Applicant on alleged discrepancies
in the witness testimony, while noted, cannot by itself form the basis for
grant of bail, and shall be considered at the stage of trial.
6. For the limited purpose of deciding the present application, it is
observed that the Complainant, who is an eye-witness to the alleged
BAIL APPLN. 1277/2025 Page 5 of 6
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 31/07/2025 at 21:55:58
incident, has clearly identified the Applicant and deposed regarding his
involvement in the commission of the alleged offence. Prima facie, the case
of the Prosecution rests not only on this ocular evidence, but also on
circumstantial evidence, including the CDR analysis of the Applicant’s
mobile phone. The CDRs indicate that the Applicant was in regular contact
with the co-accused and was present at or near the place of occurrence at the
relevant time. According to the case of the Prosecution, the Applicant
restrained the deceased while the co-accused inflicted multiple fatal knife
blows on his person, thereby attracting liability under Section 34 of the IPC.
Given that the Applicant is alleged to have acted in furtherance of a common
intention with the co-accused, the specific nature of his individual role
becomes immaterial. In the opinion of this Court, such involvement is
sufficient ground to deny bail to the Applicant in the present case.
7. Accordingly, in view of the totality of circumstances, including the
gravity of the offence, the nature of the allegations, the eye-witness account,
and the corroborative CDR evidence, this Court does not find any ground to
grant regular bail to the Applicant.
8. It is clarified that any observations made in the present order are for
the purpose of deciding the present bail application and should not influence
the outcome of the trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on
the merits of the case.
9. In view of the above, the present application is dismissed.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
JULY 29, 2025/ab
BAIL APPLN. 1277/2025 Page 6 of 6
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 31/07/2025 at 21:55:58