Delhi High Court
Parth Pandit@Parth Bajpai vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 15 April, 2025
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 08.04.2025
Judgment pronounced on: 15.04.2025
+ BAIL APPLN. 2245/2024
PARTH PANDIT@PARTH BAJPAI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sarthak Maggon and Mr.
Raunak Parmar, Advs.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP
with SI Sargam Bhardwaj, PS
Adarsh Nagar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
JUDGMENT
SHALINDER KAUR, J.
1. By way of the present petition under Section 439 read with
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC),
the petitioner seeks grant of Regular Bail in FIR No. 358/2019 dated
21.10.2019 for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 25,27,54 and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959
(Arms Act) registered at Police Station Adarsh Nagar (subject FIR).
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 20.10.2019, upon
receiving information, Sub-Inspector Ravi Kumar along with
Assistant Sub-Inspector Ram Niwas reached the BJRM Hospital,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 2245/2024 Page 1 of 7
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:15.04.2025
17:33:04
Jahangirpuri, where an injured person namely Kailash was found
admitted vide MLC No. 177197/19. The MLC recorded by the doctor
had mentioned that “A/H/O firearm injury around 9:40PM on
20.10.2019 at near Azadpur Mandi, as stated by the patient…..” When
inquired from the victim, he informed the police that he had been shot
near Mushtaq Dhaba, TPT Centre, Azadpur, Delhi, however, he did
not give a detailed statement due to severe pain. Subsequently, the
Crime Team, North West District was called on the crime scene i.e,
the aforesaid location, where an inspection was conducted. During an
extensive search, one empty shell was found lying near the Dhaba,
which was taken into possession of the police through Seizure Memo.
3. Based on the aforesaid facts, the subject FIR was registered.
During the course of the investigation, the statement of the victim was
recorded, wherein he stated that on 20.10.2019 at around 9:45 PM, he
was sitting on a bench beside Mushtaq Dhaba when four men namely
Sunny S/o Shiv Singh, Sachin S/o Munna Lal, Misham S/o Aaga Jaani
and Parth Vajpai (petitioner in the present case) approached him. Parth
and Misham had a country made pistol (katta) in their hands. Parth
fired a shot in air, while Sunny held the victim/complainant. Misham
began to frisk him and demanded that he hand over whatever money
he had. The victim handed over the money to Sachin and tried to run
away, meanwhile Parth shot him in his stomach. Thereafter, all the
accused persons ran away.
4. Thereupon, during the further course of investigation, three
accused persons Misham, Sachin and Sandeep were arrested on
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 2245/2024 Page 2 of 7
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:15.04.2025
17:33:04
03.11.2019 and one country made pistol was recovered from the
possession Misham. Subsequent thereto, another accused i.e, Parth
was arrested on 30.11.2019. The other pistol used in the commission
of the crime could not be recovered. Upon conclusion of the
investigation, chargesheet was filed before the learned Trial Court and
the matter is at the stage of recording of prosecution evidence.
5. The bail applications of the petitioner have been rejected by the
learned Sessions Court on two prior occasions vide orders dated
01.03.2024 and 08.04.2024.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner was arrested one and a half month after the said incident and
he has been falsely implicated in the present case by the concerned
police stations. At that time he was on interim bail in another FIR
bearing no. 762/2014 registered under Sections 365/302/201/120B of
the IPC and 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act. He submitted that the police
exhibited its high handedness solely to ensure that the interim bail
granted to the petitioner in the previous case would not be extended
further, thus, falsely implicated the petitioner in the present case.
7. He further submitted that no recovery has been effected from
the petitioner, despite allegations being made by the prosecution that
the petitioner was in possession of a gun. In fact, the only recovery has
been effected from the co-accused Misham.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no
prior relationship of the petitioner either with the complainant/victim
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 2245/2024 Page 3 of 7
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:15.04.2025
17:33:04
or with the other accused persons. He further submitted that the
petitioner has been in custody since 2019 and has undergone a
prolonged period of incarceration of about 5 years in the present case.
9. He submitted that the complainant/victim, in his deposition
before the learned Trial Court on 04.03.2025, disowned his statement
recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. dated 22.10.2019. He not
only declined to have made any such statement to the police, but
further denied that the petitioner had fired upon him, causing gunshot
injury to his abdomen.
10. He further submitted that other the co-accused persons namely,
Sunny, Sachin and Misham have already been granted bail by the
learned Sessions Court and this Court vide orders dated 24.12.2019,
07.07.2020 and 16.07.2020 respectively. In view of the above facts
and circumstances, he prayed that the petitioner may be admitted to
bail.
11. Conversely, Mr. Tarang Srivastava, learned APP submitted that
the petitioner is a habitual offender and was involved in crime
registered vide FIR no. 762/2014 registered under Section
365/302/201/120B of the IPC and 25/27 of the Arms Act at Police
Station North Rohini, Delhi. In this case, he was convicted by the
learned Sessions Court vide order dated 12.12.2023 and was sentenced
to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- for offence
under Section 302 IPC and imprisonment for 5 years and a fine of Rs.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 2245/2024 Page 4 of 7
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:15.04.2025
17:33:04
10,000/- for offence under Section 201 IPC. He submits, the
petitioner’s sentence has been suspended in the said case.
12. He further submitted that the petitioner had committed the
present offence while he was on interim bail in FIR No. 762/2014.
Therefore, keeping in view of his antecedents and conduct, the learned
APP prayed that the petitioner may not be granted bail.
13. No doubt allegations leveled against the petitioner are grave
that while being on interim bail in a murder case, the petitioner again
attempted to commit murder and that too fired a gunshot in the
abdomen of the injured/victim.
14. However, main witness of the prosecution’s case, who is the
injured/victim himself, has not supported the prosecution’s case. He
appeared to have completely abandoned the prosecution’s version.
The learned APP could not put forth any other strong evidence against
the petitioner. The Nominal Roll shows that the petitioner is in
custody since 29.11.2019. His sentence in case registered vide FIR no.
762/2014 registered under Section 365/302/201/120B of the IPC and
25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act at Police Station North Rohini, Delhi has
also been suspended by the Division Bench of this Court vide order
dated 22.03.2024.
15. In totality of the circumstances, the petitioner is admitted to
regular bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/-
with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned Trial
Court / CMM / Duty Magistrate, subject to the following conditions: –
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 2245/2024 Page 5 of 7
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:15.04.2025
17:33:04
i. The Petitioner shall not leave State of NCT of
Delhi without prior permission of the learned
Trial Court.
ii. The Petitioner is directed to give all his mobile
numbers to the Investigating Officer and keep it
operational at all times.
iii. The Petitioner shall not contact, nor visit, nor
offer any inducement, threat or promise to any of
the prosecution witnesses or other person
acquainted with the facts of case. The Petitioner
shall not tamper with evidence nor otherwise
indulge in any act or omission that is unlawful or
that would prejudice the proceedings in the
pending trial.
iv. The Petitioner shall report at the concerned Police
Station on every Friday between 4:00 PM to 6:00
PM. The concerned officer shall release the
Petitioner after recording his presence and after
completion of all the necessary formalities.
v. The Petitioner shall intimate the learned Trial
Court by way of an affidavit and to the
Investigating Officer regarding any change of
residential address.
vi. The Petitioner shall appear before the learned
Trial Court as and when the matter is taken up forSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 2245/2024 Page 6 of 7
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:15.04.2025
17:33:04
hearing.
16. Needless to state, any observation made hereinabove shall not
tantamount to be an expression on the merits of the case before the
learned Trial Court and has been made for the consideration of the
present bail application alone in the prevailing circumstances.
17. Copy of the order be sent to the Jail Superintendent concerned
for information and necessary compliance.
18. Accordingly, the petition, along with the pending application, is
disposed of.
SHALINDER KAUR, J
APRIL 15, 2025/ab/sk
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 2245/2024 Page 7 of 7
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:15.04.2025
17:33:04