Delhi High Court
Mustkeen @ Mota vs The State Govt.Of Nct Of Delhi on 8 July, 2025
Author: Swarana Kanta Sharma
Bench: Swarana Kanta Sharma
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 08.07.2025
+ BAIL APPLN. 990/2025
MUSTKEEN @ MOTA .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Urvashi Bhatia,
Advocate.
versus
THE STATE GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for
State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
JUDGMENT
DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J. (ORAL)
1. By way of the present application, the applicant is seeking
regular bail in case arising out of FIR bearing no. 208/2022,
registered at Police Station IP Estate, Delhi for the commission of
offences punishable under Sections 302/307/120B/34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 [hereafter „IPC‟] and Sections 25/27 of Arms Act,
1959.
2. Brief facts of the case, as per prosecution, are that on
13.06.2022, information regarding the murder of one Farman was
received at PS IP Estate, Delhi vide DD No. 3A. The complainant,
Md. Idreesh, father of the deceased, stated that his son Farman was
BAIL APPLN. 990/2025 Page 1 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.07.2025
18:56:54
married to one Aliya, but their marital life was strained due to
interference by Aliya‟s sister, Samreen. It was alleged that Samreen
instigated her husband, Raj Kumar @ Bhola, against the
complainant‟s family, leading to several altercations between Raj
Kumar and the deceased. The complainant alleged that on
12.06.2022, he and his son Farman were present at their house, when
the co-accused Raj Kumar @ Bhola came outside, and called out
Farman. As soon as Farman stepped out, he was attacked by Raj
Kumar, who also stabbed him multiple times with a knife. When the
complainant went outside to help save his son, Raj Kumar had
allegedly called the present applicant Mustkeen and asked him to
ensure that neither Farman nor his father (i.e. the complainant)
survives. Thereafter, Mustkeen had allegedly started hitting Farman,
who was already injured, while Raj Kumar had started attacking the
complainant Md. Idreesh, who also sustained facial injuries. On the
basis of these allegations, the FIR was registered. During
investigation, statement of one eye-witness Sonu @ Mogli was
recorded, who revealed that Raj Kumar @ Bhola and Mustkeen, with
the help of their associates, had murdered Farman by stabbing him
and had also tried to murder Md. Idreesh and had later fled away
from the spot. His statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. was also
recorded wherein he specifically revealed that both Raj Kumar @
Bhola and Mustkeen had stabbed the deceased, while other accused
persons (their accomplice) had blocked the road/lane.
3. During investigation, the post-mortem of Farman revealed
BAIL APPLN. 990/2025 Page 2 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.07.2025
18:56:54
death due to haemorrhagic shock resulting from multiple ante-
mortem stab injuries. Accused Raj Kumar, Mustkeen, and Samreen
were arrested and, during custodial interrogation, disclosed their
involvement in the crime. Raj Kumar admitted that he and his wife
Samreen had conspired to kill Farman and the complainant due to
personal enmity. The conspiracy was allegedly hatched on the same
day at Haldiram Restaurant, Janpath, and relevant CCTV footage and
call recordings between the accused were recovered. Blood-stained
clothes and shoes were recovered from the accused‟s car, and the
weapons of offence were recovered at the instance of Raj Kumar and
Mustkeen. CCTV footage from the PWD captured the incident,
showing six individuals arriving at the spot, and Raj Kumar and
Mustkeen stabbing Farman.
4. It is alleged that after the incident, all the accused fled from the
scene. Co-accused Sabir and Salman were subsequently arrested. The
main charge sheet and two supplementary charge sheets have been
filed, and the matter is pending trial before the Sessions Court.
Charges have been framed against Raj Kumar @ Bhola, Mustkeen,
and Samreen vide order dated 27.04.2023. Investigation is ongoing in
respect of two unidentified accused persons who remain untraced.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the
applicant has been in custody since 13.06.2022 and has undergone
more than two years and six months of incarceration. It is argued that
the applicant was arrested primarily on the basis of the statement of
the complainant, Md. Idreesh, who has since passed away. Apart
BAIL APPLN. 990/2025 Page 3 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.07.2025
18:56:54
from the applicant‟s disclosure statement, which is not admissible in
evidence, no incriminating material was recovered from or at his
instance during the investigation. It is further contended that the
prosecution case is based largely on the testimony of a sole eye-
witness, PW-1 Sonu @ Mogli. However, during his deposition before
the Court, the said witness clearly stated that he could not identify
any of the persons shown in the CCTV footage as the footage was
blurred, nor could he identify the applicant during the trial.
Therefore, it is argued that the only eye-witness has not supported the
prosecution‟s case qua the applicant. The learned counsel also
submitted that co-accused Samreen, who is alleged to have played a
significant role in the conspiracy to commit the offence, has already
been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 20.09.2024,
and the applicant is therefore entitled to parity. Attention was also
drawn to the testimony of PW-4 “S”, who stated that the applicant
did not inflict any injury or stab the deceased but had allegedly held
the deceased from behind while the main accused Raj Kumar gave
the fatal blows. It is submitted that the applicant‟s role is, at best,
secondary and not of direct involvement in the act of murder. On
these grounds, it is prayed that the applicant be released on regular
bail.
6. The learned APP for the State opposes the bail application, and
argues that the applicant was actively involved in the conspiracy to
murder the deceased Farman, in collusion with co-accused Rajkumar
@ Bhola. It is submitted that several call recordings between
BAIL APPLN. 990/2025 Page 4 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.07.2025
18:56:54
Rajkumar and Samreen, recovered during investigation, reveal their
intent to seek revenge against Farman and the complainant Idreesh. It
is further submitted that blood-stained clothes and shoes were
recovered from the accused persons‟ car at the instance of Rajkumar
and the present applicant. The weapons of offence i.e. knives were
also recovered at their instance. Additionally, CCTV footage of the
incident shows six individuals arriving at the scene, where Rajkumar
and the applicant are seen stabbing Farman. Rajkumar also attempted
to kill the complainant, and all accused fled thereafter. In view of the
gravity of the offence, the nature of evidence collected, and the
applicant‟s active role in the incident, it is submitted that no ground
for grant of bail is made out.
7. This Court has heard arguments addressed on behalf of both
the parties and has perused the material available on record.
8. As per prosecution, the present applicant, along with co-
accused Rajkumar @ Bhola and others, was involved in a pre-
planned conspiracy to murder the deceased Farman. On 12.06.2022,
the accused persons had allegedly come to the complainant‟s house,
where Rajkumar and the applicant had stabbed Farman to death,
while others had facilitated the crime.
9. The prosecution has also placed reliance on CCTV footage
allegedly capturing the incident, asserting that the applicant is clearly
visible along with co-accused Rajkumar @ Bhola at the scene of
crime. This Court also notes that as per chargesheet, two knives were
recovered at the instance of both accused Rajkumar and Mustkeen
BAIL APPLN. 990/2025 Page 5 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.07.2025
18:56:54
from the sunroof cover of a car bearing registration number
DL12C0192 on 14.06.2022 at about 12:30 AM. The said knives are
alleged to be the weapons used in the commission of the offence.
Further, as per the subsequent medical opinion, the injuries
mentioned in the post-mortem report are opined to be possible by the
weapons of offence, i.e., the knives recovered in the case.
Furthermore, the post-mortem of the deceased opined the cause of
death to be haemorrhagic shock resulting from multiple ante-mortem
stab injuries.
10. It is a matter of fact that PW-1 and PW-3 have not supported
the prosecution case on the material aspects. However, this Court
attention was drawn to the testimony of PW-4 by the learned counsel
for the accused. This Court notes that PW-4 has deposed before the
learned Trial Court that at the time of incident, Rajkumar @ Bhola
had called out Farman, and grabbed him by his collar. Rajkumar had
then called out to Mustkeen saying, “come quickly”. At that time,
four individuals stood at a distance, surrounding the area, with
handkerchiefs tied around their faces. Rajkumar had then punched
Farman on the nose and then took out a knife and started stabbing
him. At that point, Mustkeen (the present applicant) came from
behind and held Farman’s hands, restraining him while Rajkumar
continued to stab him. The witness stated that Farman was screaming
for help but was unable to free himself.
11. Thus, even if the contention of the learned counsel, that the
applicant did not inflict stab injuries on the deceased, is accepted, his
BAIL APPLN. 990/2025 Page 6 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.07.2025
18:56:54
act of restraining the deceased from behind while the co-accused
Rajkumar repeatedly stabbed him, as deposed by PW-4, prima facie
reflects active participation and facilitation in the commission of the
offence. The role attributed to the applicant cannot be seen as merely
peripheral or passive in nature. Had the present applicant not
restrained the deceased, the victim might have been able to defend
himself or escape the fatal assault.
12. This Court has also perused the nominal roll of the
applicant/accused, which reflects that he has been in judicial custody
for about three years. However, his jail conduct has been reported as
unsatisfactory, with multiple jail punishments having been awarded
to him for prison offences such as possession of prohibited articles,
recovery of a sharp piece of tile, and misbehaviour with jail staff. He
is also involved in another case, i.e., FIR No. 98/2020, registered at
P.S. Khajuri Khas, for offences under Sections
109/114/147/148/149/186/188/332/353/427/436/34 of the IPC.
13. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of X v. State of
Rajasthan: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539 has held that in cases
involving serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity, etc., the Courts
should be loath in entertaining the bail application – once the trial
commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses.
14. Thus, considering the seriousness of the allegations, the
specific role attributed to the applicant by PW-4 in her examination
before the learned Trial Court – of facilitating the commission of the
offence by physically restraining the deceased, the alleged recovery
BAIL APPLN. 990/2025 Page 7 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.07.2025
18:56:54
of the weapon of offence at his instance, his unsatisfactory jail
conduct as well as his involvement in another criminal case, and the
fact that trial is at a crucial stage and material witnesses are being
examined, this Court does not find any ground to grant the regular
bail to the applicant at this stage.
15. Accordingly, the present bail application is dismissed.
16. It is, however, clarified that nothing expressed herein above
shall tantamount to an expression of opinion on merits of the case.
17. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.
DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
JULY 08, 2025/vc
BAIL APPLN. 990/2025 Page 8 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.07.2025
18:56:54
[ad_1]
Source link