Delhi High Court – Orders
Hari Mohan vs State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi on 5 August, 2025
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 2148/2025 & CRL.M.A. 17488/2025
HARI MOHAN .....Applicant
Through: Mr. Shubham Yadav, Mr.
Mohit Mudgal, Mr. H.L.
Gandhi & Mr. Sandeep
Yadav, Advs.
versus
STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam,
APP for the State.
Insp. Pradeep Sharma,
Insp. Surya Prakash & SI
Rajnikant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
ORDER
% 05.08.2025
1. The present application is filed under Section 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking grant of regular bail
in FIR No. 121/2019 dated 16.04.2019, registered at Police
Station Kirti Nagar for offences punishable under Sections
394/397/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (‘IPC‘) and
Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
2. The FIR was registered pursuant a statement given by ASI
Naresh Pal Singh, following the incident dated 15.04.2019. It is
alleged that when ASI Naresh Pal Singh alongwith ASI Sunil,
HC Digvijay and Ct. Ashok, were checking vehicles near the
underpass in Kirti Nagar Industrial Area, they heard the sound of
a gunshot from the underpass, at around 8:30 pm. It is alleged
that when the police officials reached the spot, they saw that a
boy was shooting at a man, another boy was standing ready to
BAIL APPLN. 2148/2025 Page 1 of 8
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 08/08/2025 at 22:57:29
flee with a motorcycle bearing No. DL8SAY3270 and two other
boys were seen opening the trunk of a car bearing No. DL-
4CNA-4039. It is alleged that two persons were lying injured on
the road. It is alleged that upon seeing the police officials, the
accused persons attempted to flee from there however, one boy
with the motorcycle, namely- Saleem, was apprehended by the
police.
3. It is alleged that the two injured persons were rushed to the
Hospital, where one of them namely- Anand Aggarwal was
declared brought dead by the doctor, while the other namely-
Surjeet Singh @ Suraj was unconscious and declared unfit for
statement.
4. During the investigation, it was found that accused
Saleem, along with other accused persons, including the
applicant herein, had attempted to loot the deceased Anand
Aggarwal, who is stated to be a businessman, at gun point. It is
alleged that in the boot of the car bearing No. DL-4CNA-4039,
cash amounting to ₹1.80 crores was recovered. Four accused
persons namely Saleem, Ajay Sharma, Deepak and the applicant
herein, were arrested in the present case on 16.04.2019. It is
alleged that the gun used in the crime was also recovered at the
instance of the co-accused Ajay Sharma.
5. In the disclosure statement, all accused persons have stated
that on the date of the alleged incident, they had come to Naraina
Industrial Area and saw the deceased Anand Aggarwal keeping a
bag of cash in his car. They stated that they followed the car of
the deceased and over took the same, whereafter co-accused Ajay
Sharma had fired at the deceased and his driver.
BAIL APPLN. 2148/2025 Page 2 of 8
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 08/08/2025 at 22:57:29
6. The Call Detailed Records (‘CDR’) of the mobile numbers
of the accused persons reveal that their location, on the date of
commission of the offence, was at the spot where the alleged
incident took place and they were in contact with each other.
7. The chargesheet has been filed under Sections
302/307/397/394/393/34 of the IPC and Sections 25/27 of the
Arms Act, 1959 against all the accused persons.
8. The bail applications preferred by the applicant before the
learned Trial Court was dismissed by orders dated 10.04.2024
and 11.12.2024.
9. The applicant had, on an earlier occasion, filed an
application seeking regular bail before this Court, being BAIL
APPLN. No. 1641/2024, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide
order dated 03.07.2024, granting liberty to the applicant to file
afresh in case the trail does not conclude within a period of six
months.
10. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and that
he was not named as an accused in the FIR.
11. He submits that the applicant has not been identified by
the prosecution witnesses.
12. He submits that the investigation is complete and nothing
incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the
applicant during the course of investigation.
13. He submits that the applicant has been in custody since
20.04.2019 and prolonged incarceration is causing severe
hardships to his dependents as he is the sole bread earner of his
family.
BAIL APPLN. 2148/2025 Page 3 of 8
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 08/08/2025 at 22:57:29
14. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
(‘APP’) for the State vehemently opposes the grant of any relief
to the applicant. He submits that the allegations against the
applicant are serious in nature and witnesses are yet to be
examined.
15. Heard the learned counsels and perused the record.
16. The Court, while considering such applications, has to
keep certain factors in mind, such as: (i) the nature or gravity of
the offense; (ii) the character of the evidence and circumstances
unique to the accused; (iii) the likelihood of the accused evading
justice; (iv) the potential impact of the release on prosecution
witnesses and its societal repercussions; and (v) the probability
of the accused engaging in tampering.
17. It has been held in a catena of judgments that while
considering an application of the accused seeking bail, the Court
would not be justified in going into evidence on record at such
depth so as to ascertain probability of conviction of the accused
as the same is a matter of trial.
18. In the present case, the allegations against the applicant are
that he along with the other co-accused persons, had conspired to
loot the deceased Anand Aggarwal. The accused persons used
fire arms in the process, which has resulted in the death of Anand
Aggarwal and gunshot wounds caused to Surjeet, who was the
driver of Anand Aggarwal. It is alleged that the present applicant
was the main conspirator in the present case, and was constantly
in contact with the other accused persons on the alleged date of
incident, through his mobile phone number 9109676810. His
mobile number was also found to be active at the location where
BAIL APPLN. 2148/2025 Page 4 of 8
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 08/08/2025 at 22:57:29
the alleged incident took.
19. As per the CDR, a total of 12 calls were found to be made
between the mobile numbers of the applicant and the other
accused persons on 15.04.2019 from 6:25 pm to 10:16 pm.
20. During the course of trial, the injured witness Surjeet has
not been able to identify the applicant, however, the applicant
was duly identified by the complainant-ASI Naresh Pal Singh as
the boy who was opening the trunk of the car bearing No. DL-
4CNA-4039. It is not denied that the complaint was filed at the
instance of ASI Naresh Pal Singh, as he was present at the spot.
21. Co-accused namely-Saleem was apprehended at the spot,
however the other accused persons, including the applicant
herein, had flee from the spot.
22. At this juncture, in the opinion of this Court, the
investigation conducted so far does not indicate that the applicant
is sought to be falsely implicated. The material presented by the
prosecution establishes a prima facie involvement of the
applicant.
23. It is further pointed out by the learned APP for the State
that the petitioner is a history sheeter involved in as many as 18
criminal cases, some of which are for offences punishable under
Section 302 of the IPC as well as offences punishable under the
provisions of the Arms Act, 1959.
24. As noted above, the applicant is involved in multiple
criminal cases. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Prabhakar Tewari v.
State of U.P. : (2020) 11 SCC 648 has observed that the gravity
of the alleged offence and the pendency of multiple criminal
cases against the accused, though relevant considerations, cannot,
BAIL APPLN. 2148/2025 Page 5 of 8
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 08/08/2025 at 22:57:29
in isolation, constitute sufficient grounds for the denial of bail,
provided the applicant has otherwise demonstrated sufficient
grounds warranting the grant of such relief.
25. However, in the peculiar facts of the present case, the
pendency of multiple criminal cases against the accused is a
relevant factor to be taken into consideration. The Nominal Roll
of the applicant reveals that the applicant has been previously
convicted for the offences punishable under Section 411 of the
IPC in FIR No. 434/2008 and under Section
365/392/397/411/120B of the IPC in FIR No. 333/2012. In
addition thereto, there are sixteen other criminal cases registered
against the applicant in different districts of Delhi, the earliest of
which dates back to the year 2006. The conduct of the applicant
indicates that, if released on bail, there exists a substantial
likelihood of his involvement in the commission of similar
offences.
26. The grant of bail should not be arbitrary or whimsical.
Being conscious of the fact that individual liberty holds immense
significance, it is incumbent upon the Courts to examine and
evaluate, albeit briefly, factors such as the prima facie case, the
nature and severity of the crime, and the accused’s likelihood to
flee from justice, among other considerations as noted above.
27. Accordingly, taking into account the evidence available on
record and the submissions made by the learned counsels for the
parties, this Court is of the opinion that prima facie, there is
cogent material on record at this stage to show the involvement
of the applicant, and therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant
bail to the applicant.
BAIL APPLN. 2148/2025 Page 6 of 8
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 08/08/2025 at 22:57:29
28. The learned APP for the State informs that out of 34
witnesses, 19 have been examined. Thus, in the opinion of this
Court, the trial has been proceeding expeditiously, and at this
stage it cannot be presumed that the trial will not conclude in a
timely manner.
29. The applicant has been charged for the offence under
Section 302 of the IPC for which the minimum punishment is
upto life. The Hon’ble Apex Court, recently, in the case of X v.
State of Rajasthan & Anr. : 2024 INSC 909, in a challenge to
the order passed by the High Court of Rajasthan whereby the bail
application filed by the accused was allowed, observed as under:
“14. Ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder,
dacoity, etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution
starts examining its witnesses, the Court be it the Trial Court
or the High Court should be loath in entertaining the bail
application of the accused.
15. Over a period of time, we have noticed two things, i.e., (i)
either bail is granted after the charge is framed and just
before the victim is to be examined by the prosecution before
the trial court, or (ii) bail is granted once the recording of
the oral evidence of the victim is complete by looking into
some discrepancies here or there in the deposition and
thereby testing the credibility of the victim.
16. We are of the view that the aforesaid is not a correct
practice that the Courts below should adopt. Once the trial
commences, it should be allowed to reach to its final
conclusion which may either result in the conviction of the
accused or acquittal of the accused. The moment the High
Court exercises its discretion in favour of the accused and
orders release of the accused on bail by looking into the
deposition of the victim, it will have its own impact on the
pending trial when it comes to appreciating the oral evidence
of the victim. It is only in the event if the trial gets unduly
delayed and that too for no fault on the part of the accused,
the Court may be justified in ordering his release on bail on
the ground that right of the accused to have a speedy trial
has been infringed.”
30. While the applicant has spent close to six years in custody,
however, it cannot be ignored that the material on record prima
BAIL APPLN. 2148/2025 Page 7 of 8
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 08/08/2025 at 22:57:29
facie indicates his involvement in the present case. Furthermore,
having regard to the applicant’s antecedents, including his prior
convictions and the pendency of multiple criminal cases, his
overall conduct does not inspire confidence so as to justify any
indulgence by way of leniency. For this reason, merely because
the applicant has spent a substantial period in custody, the same
alone cannot be a ground to grant bail to the applicant in the
present case.
31. In view of the above, the present application is dismissed.
32. The learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and
conclude the examination of witnesses to ensure that justice is
served in a timely manner.
33. It is made clear that the observations made in the present
case are only 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.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
AUGUST 5, 2025
BAIL APPLN. 2148/2025 Page 8 of 8
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 08/08/2025 at 22:57:29