Delhi High Court
Charan Singh @ Babli vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 30 January, 2025
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Pronounced on: 30th January, 2025
+ BAIL APPLN. 4635/2024 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 2141/2024
(for interim bail)
CHARAN SINGH @ BABLI
S/o Rampat
Presently lodged in CJ.3, Tihar Jail, Delhi
Through Pairokar/son
Nishant Khatana
S/o Charan Singh
R/o B-929, Sangam Vihar,
South, Pushpa Bhawan,
South Delhi-110062 .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Mir, Senior
Advocate with Ms. Neha Kapoor, Mr.
Kaushal Mehta and Mohd. Imran
Ahmad, Advocates.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Through
SHO
PS: Sangam Vihar .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, Ld. APP for
the State with SI Arvind and SI
Reghuraj P.S. Sangam Vihar. Mr.
Rajpal Kasana, Ms. Moni Rexwal,
Mr. Loveneet Bhati, Mr. Vishal Khari
and Mr. Nagendra Kasana,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 4635/2024 Page 1 of
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA
10
Signing Date:30.01.2025
19:18:02
1. First Bail Application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’)/Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as
‘B.N.S.S.’) has been filed on behalf of the Applicant, Charan Singh @
Babli, for grant of Regular Bail in FIR No. 228/2018 under Section 307/34
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC‘) read with
Section 27/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959 registered at Police Station Sangam
Vihar.
2. It is submitted that the Applicant, Charan Singh is languishing in
judicial custody for more than 04 years and till date, only 09 witnesses out
of 40 witnesses, have been examined. There are 11 accused persons
including one juvenile, out of which 08 accused persons have been granted
Regular Bail by the learned Trial Court. All the eye-witnesses have already
been examined and there is no apprehension of influencing the witnesses.
Furthermore, there is no threat perception to any of the witnesses. The
Applicant had been released on Interim Bail earlier during Covid period, but
nothing adverse was reported against him.
3. It is submitted that the FIR was registered on 15.06.2018, on the
Complaint of Sh. Manish/PW-2 alleging that on 14.06.2018 at around 8:00
p.m., he had gone to get water from Government pipeline from outside the
house of the Applicant, when he started beating the Complainant. Sh.
Krishan, father of the Complainant and Sh. Chahat, his Uncle, came to
intervene and all of them returned to their house. Thereafter, the Applicant
along with his brother, Gagan, Kannu and father, Sh. Rampat, cousins, Billu
and Jaswar, came and started throwing bricks and stones upon the
Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 4635/2024 Page 2 of
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA
10
Signing Date:30.01.2025
19:18:02
Complainant and his family members. It was further alleged that Rampat hit
Suman with stone on foot, Gagan hit the Complainant on his head with stone
and the Applicant took out the pistol and fired upon the Complainant, which
hit him on his hand. Thereafter, the Applicant called Atwa, to whom he
handed over the Pistol who opened fire on Krishan, which hit him on his
chest, while other accused persons were beating and pelting stones on the
Complainant and his family members. Thereafter, Krishan was taken to
hospital and he died.
4. FIR No. 228/2018 under Section 307/34 of the IPC read with Section
27/54/59 of the Arms Act, was registered at Police Station Sangam Vihar, on
15.06.2018 at 1.15 a.m., i.e. after the delay of almost 5 hours of reporting of
the incident by making a PCR Call at 8:35 p.m. on 14.06.2018. DD No. 81
A dated 14.06.2018, was registered on the PCR call.
5. The PCR Call and DD No. 81 A noted the time as 8:35 p.m. and it
mentioned that “In a quarrel, firing took place and one person has been
shot”, which is in complete contrast to the testimony of PW-2/Complainant
wherein after watching the CCTV footage of the spot of incidence, he
deposed that on 20:40:44, his father was seen in white shirt pushing all the
boys towards his house and at 20:41:36, his father was seen running with
blood coming out from the right side of his chest. He further deposed that at
20:40:21, he had seen the Applicant carrying a danda in his hand and going
towards the house of Babli. At 20:43:14, the Applicant was seen having a
danda in left hand and throwing a brick from right hand towards the house
of Rampat.
Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 4635/2024 Page 3 of
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA
10
Signing Date:30.01.2025
19:18:02
6. It is claimed that had the Complainant being shot, it would have found
a mention in the PCR Call and DD Entry which was recorded thereafter.
Further, it is evident from the video footage that there was no such injury on
the left hand of the Complainant. More so, he admits that he had a danda in
his left hand, however, had there been an injury caused to his hand, he
would not have been able to lift the danda. It is claimed that the testimony
of eye witnesses, is contradictory to the video footage.
7. The Applicant has further submitted that the Charge-Sheet under
Section 302/307/34 of the IPC read with Section 25/27/54/59 of the Arms
Act, has been filed in September, 2018 and the two Supplementary Charge-
Sheets along with the FSL Reports, have been filed subsequently. Vide Order
dated 09.08.2019, Charge under Section 302/307 read with Section 34 of the
IPC, has been framed against all the accused and an additional Charge under
Section 27 of the Arms Act, has been framed against the Applicant, even
though there was no recovery of weapon from him nor was he seen carrying
the arms in the CCTV video footage. The Site Plan is also not witnessed by
the Complainant despite his statement that the Site Plan was prepared by the
Investigating Officer, at his instance.
8. It is asserted that there are material contradictions in the testimony of
eye witnesses. The case of the Applicant, cannot be equated with Atwa, as
the role ascribed to the Applicant is that he hit the bullet on the hand of the
Complainant, though no such act is visible in the CCTV footage.
9. Though the Complainant has claimed that he was shot in the left hand
but he was not examined in Batra Hospital along with his father and no
reason for the same, has been provided by the prosecution. There is no
Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 4635/2024 Page 4 of
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA
10
Signing Date:30.01.2025
19:18:02
explanation as to why the Complainant was taken to AIIMS Trauma Centre.
It further creates a doubt on the story of the Prosecution.
10. Furthermore, the MLC of Manish reflects that one gunshot injury on
left forearm, though the prosecution has failed to establish that the said
gunshot injury was linked to the Applicant; more so in terms of testimony of
PW-2/Complainant and the CCTV footage.
11. Furthermore, allegedly the Complainant was carrying a weapon in his
left hand and was actively pelting stones even after his father was allegedly
shot. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that the gunshot injury on his left
forearm was self-inflicted, more so for the reason that as per the FSL Report
dated 21.01.2019, the bullets recovered from the body of the deceased,
Krishan and Manish respectively, could not be linked to the Fire Arm
recovered on the disclosure of Atwa. In fact, there is no recovery of any
weapon from the Applicant nor the pistol allegedly recovered is linked in
any manner to him. No efforts were made to even lift chance prints from the
pistol allegedly used in the commission of offence. Only empty cartridge
was recovered from the spot but there is no reference to other empty
cartridge qua the two bullets allegedly recovered from the body of the
Complainant and the deceased respectively.
12. Further, despite there being many public witnesses as are visible in
the CCTV footage, not a single statement from any of the public witnesses
has been recorded nor any enquiry about the incident has been conducted.
The recovery of cartridges was also not witnessed by public witnesses
despite their presence. The alleged cartridges, pellets etc. were seized vide
Seizure Memo dated 14.06.2018 but the Seizure Memo also mentions the
Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 4635/2024 Page 5 of
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA
10
Signing Date:30.01.2025
19:18:02
FIR number which was registered subsequently on 15.06.2018. The
Seizure Memo itself creates a doubt on the story of the prosecution.
13. The Applicant was arrested on 15.06.2018 and there is no reason for
him to abscond now. He undertakes not to tamper with the evidence or
influence the witnesses and also to abide by the terms, which may be
imposed by this Court. Furthermore, he is the sole earning member of his
family comprising of his wife and two children, who were solely dependent
upon the Applicant for their survival. His two children are presently
studying; his elder son being a B.A. Final year student while younger son is
a B.A. 1st year student. They both want to pursue MBA, for which funds
need to be arranged by the Applicant.
14. It is, therefore, submitted that he may be granted Regular Bail.
15. Learned counsel on behalf of the Applicant, has placed reliance on
judgements of this Court in Abhijeet Ghosh vs. State of NCT of Delhi &
Anr., BAIL APPLN. 2407/2023, decided on 15.02.2024 and Urmila vs.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi, BAIL APPLN. 4495/2024, decided on 10.01.2025
wherein bail on similar offences has been granted.
16. Further, reliance is placed on Praveen Rathore vs. State of Rajasthan,
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1268; Santosh Kumar Meena vs. State of Rajasthan,
2024 SCC OnLine SC 2732; Gobinder Singh @ Deepak @ Kali vs. State
through SHO Kamla Nagar (Bail Application 1363/2024); Mohd. Ejaj vs.
State of NCT of Delhi in Bail Application No. 1491/2024 dated 18.11.2024;
Dheeraj vs. State (Bail Application No. 3052/2024) dated 16.10.2024;
Deepak Tiwari vs. State of NCTD (2024 SCC OnLine Del 7810); Bhupender
vs. State, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 6967; and Nikhil Rai Handa vs. State of
Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 4635/2024 Page 6 of
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA
10
Signing Date:30.01.2025
19:18:02
Delhi, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3891 wherein Bail has been granted by
various Courts due to long period of incarceration while awaiting trial.
17. Reliance has also been placed on Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis
Chatterjee and Anr., 2010 SCC OnLine SC 1242 to state that factors to be
considered at the time of bail include whether there is prima facie ground to
believe that the accused had committed the offence; nature and gravity of
offence; severity of punishment in the event of conviction; danger of
accused absconding if bail is granted; character and standing of the accused;
likelihood of offence being repeated; reasonable apprehension of the witness
being influenced and danger of justice being thwarted if bail is granted.
18. It is submitted that irrespective of the nature of offence, he is entitled
to bail as grounds of arrest were not given in writing for which reliance is
placed on Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine
SC 934 and Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1244.
19. Status Report has been filed on behalf of the State wherein it is
submitted that the Applicant and his associate, Attur Rehman Atwa are the
main accused, who had fired gunshots due to which Sh. Krishan Bhadana,
father of the Complainant had died while the Complainant, Sh. Manish
suffered gunshot injury on his forearm. Furthermore, it is the Applicant who
had called the co-accused Attur Rehman Atwa. The bullet was first fired by
the Applicant and thereafter, he had handed over the firearm to co-accused
Attur Rehman Atwa, who again fired, which led to the demise of Sh.
Krishan Bhadana. It is further stated that out of 40 witnesses, 11 have
already been examined.
Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 4635/2024 Page 7 of
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA
10
Signing Date:30.01.2025
19:18:02
20. The Bail is strongly opposed, considering the heinousness of the
crime.
21. Submissions heard and the record perused.
22. The allegations against the Applicant are that he along with the other
co-accused persons, gave beatings to the Complainant and his family
members by giving fist blows, danda blows and by pelting stones.
Eventually, the Applicant fired at the Complainant Manish, who suffered
bullet injury on his forearm. In the meanwhile, the Applicant called Attur
Rehman Atwa and handed over his fire arm to him, who in turn shot at his
father, Sh. Krishan Bhadana, who suffered injuries on his chest and
subsequently died.
23. There are serious charges of Section 302/307/34 of the IPC, against
the Applicant. Considering his defined role, he cannot claim parity with the
co-accused persons, who have been granted bail as the role ascribed to them
is essentially of pelting stones and giving blows. His role as similar to that of
Attur Rehman Atwa, who is also in custody.
24. Much has been stated in regard to the CCTV footage, but there can be
no isolated reference to various shots of CCTV footage which can be
considered comprehensively along with the other evidence. Insofar as the
contradictions in the testimony of PW-2 are concerned, these alleged
deviations from the main incident and contradiction, if any, can only be
appreciated holistically while considering the entire prosecution evidence.
At this stage of Bail, there can be no minute scrutiny into the credibility of
the testimony of PW-2, who has supported the case of the prosecution.
Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 4635/2024 Page 8 of
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA
10
Signing Date:30.01.2025
19:18:02
25. Similarly, even though the weapon recovered may not match with the
bullets, but the prosecution case, which is supported by the Medical Record,
establishes that both the Complainant, Manish as well as his father, had
suffered bullet injury; rather the father succumbed because of the bullet
injury.
26. Furthermore, the Applicant has a prior history of involvement in FIR
No. 362/2004 under Section 325/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station
Sangam Vihar.
27. The Applicant has placed reliance on judgements of the Apex Court
in Praveen Rathore (supra); Santosh Kumar Meena (supra) and the
judgements of Coordinate Benches of this Court in Abhijeet Ghosh (supra);
Gobinder Singh @ Deepak (supra); Mohd. Ejaj (supra); Deepak Tiwari
(supra); Bhupender (supra) and Nikhil Rai Handa (supra) which are
distinguishable and do not aid their case in light of the totality of
circumstances and the role of the Applicant/accused.
28. Further, the Applicant has placed reliance on Prabir Purkayastha
(supra) and Pankaj Bansal (supra) to support the proposition that an accused
is entitled to bail if grounds of arrest are not given to him in writing, though
this again is not supported by the record.
29. The Charge-Sheet stands filed in September, 2018 and the prosecution
witnesses are in the process of being recorded. At this stage, it cannot be
held that the trial is not progressing entitling the Applicant to Bail, on this
sole ground.
30. Considering all the factors and the gravity of offence, there is no case
made out for grant of Bail and the Bail Application is hereby dismissed.
Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 4635/2024 Page 9 of
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA
10
Signing Date:30.01.2025
19:18:02
31. The Bail Application is disposed of accordingly along with the
pending Applications, if any.
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
JANUARY 30, 2025/RS
Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 4635/2024 Page 10 of
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA
10
Signing Date:30.01.2025
19:18:02