Delhi High Court
Raj Saha @ Tarzen vs State Govt.Of Nct Of Delhi on 15 July, 2025
$~14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 15.07.2025
+ BAIL APPLN. 4238/2024
RAJ SAHA @ TARZEN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pratyush Prasanna and Ms.
Saumya Yadav, Advs.
versus
STATE GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Satish Kumar, APP for
State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
SHALINDER KAUR, J (ORAL)
1. By way of the present petition under Section 483 read with
Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the
petitioner seeks the grant of Regular Bail in FIR No. 10/2018 dated
27.03.2018 for offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (IPC) registered at Police Station North Avenue, New Delhi.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 27.03.2018, information
was received at Police Station North Avenue vide DD No. 6A that an
unknown injured person was lying on the footpath adjoining Block
18-32, Government Servant Residential Colony, Pandit Pant Marg,
New Delhi. Upon receipt of the said information, IO/SI Kedar Yadav
reached the spot, where one unknown male individual was found lying
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHIM KAPOOR BAIL APPLN. 4238/2024
Signing Date:16.07.2025
Page 1 of 7
20:51:33
on the footpath in an injured condition and a considerable amount of
blood was found on the footpath. Thereupon, the victim was shifted to
Dr. RML Hospital vide MLC No. E/67193/18. However, he was
declared unfit for statement and no eyewitness could be located at that
point in time. Accordingly, on the basis of the said information and
MLC, abovesaid FIR was registered.
3. During the investigation, the injured was identified as one
Gajender Singh. On 25.04.2018, during the course of treatment, the
said injured succumbed to his injuries at Dr. RML Hospital, pursuant
to which Section 302 of the IPC was added to the abovesaid case. The
post-mortem examination of the deceased was conducted at Dr. RML
Hospital vide PM No. 310/18, wherein the cause of death was opined
to be the ‘cumulative effect of head injury and neck injury, which is
sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.’
4. The statement of an eyewitness, namely Mithai Parshad, was
recorded. He stated that on the intervening night of 26/27.03.2018, he
was sleeping on the opposite side of the footpath and at around 2:30 to
3:00 A.M., he heard sounds of a quarrel, specifically, “Mar chikne ise
mar de… chal Raj ab yahan se jaldi nikal le.” Similarly, Ganesh
Bahadur, who was posted as a security guard at the gate of
Government Quarters, Block 18-23, Pandit Pant Marg, stated that at
the said time and date, while on duty, he too heard the same
quarrelling voices, i.e.,” Mar chikne ise mar de… chal Raj ab yahan se
jaldi nikal le.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHIM KAPOOR BAIL APPLN. 4238/2024 Signing Date:16.07.2025 Page 2 of 7 20:51:33
5. On 15.04.2018, the petitioner was arrested by the staff of Police
Station Mandir Marg in connection with FIR No. 22/2018, under
Section 302 of the IPC at Police Station Mandir Marg. The petitioner
got his disclosure statement recorded, wherein he disclosed that on the
intervening night of 26/27.03.2018, he was sleeping along with his
friend Chandan Jha @ Vicky @ Chikna on the footpath adjoining
Government Quarters, Block 18-23, Pandit Pant Marg. In the
meantime, one person, who appeared to be under the influence of
alcohol, came there and started abusing them over the issue of
sleeping space. Consequently, both of them assaulted the said person,
and his friend Vicky is alleged to have slit the neck of the said
individual with a surgical blade. Upon noticing blood oozing from his
neck, they took two mobile phones from the injured’s pocket and fled
from the spot.
6. During the course of investigation, the petitioner was identified
by a witness, namely Pintu @ Dheeraj, who runs a shop at Pandit Pant
Marg. Pintu @ Dheeraj stated that he had seen the accused Raj Saha
along with co-accused Chandan Jha @ Vicky @ Chikna and the
deceased Gajender at the place of occurrence prior to the incident.
Subsequently, another eyewitness to the incident, namely Baba @
Arun Kumar, was also found present at the scene of crime. His
statement was recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC, wherein he
stated that on the intervening night of 26/27.03.2018, he too was
sleeping on the footpath and had witnessed the petitioner and Chandan
Jha @ Vicky @ Chikna quarrelling with Gajender and thereafter
assaulting him with a blade.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHIM KAPOOR BAIL APPLN. 4238/2024 Signing Date:16.07.2025 Page 3 of 7 20:51:33
7. Upon conclusion of the investigation, the Charge-Sheet was
filed against the petitioner. Efforts were made to apprehend the co-
accused Chandan Jha @ Vicky @ Chikna; however, he deliberately
evaded arrest. Accordingly, vide order dated 12.02.2019, he was
declared a Proclaimed Offender.
8. On 12.05.2019, the co-accused Chandan Jha @ Vicky @
Chikna was arrested in the present case. During the course of police
custody remand, the weapon of offence, i.e., a surgical blade, was
recovered at the instance of the said co-accused. A subsequent opinion
regarding the said weapon was sought from the Forensic Department
of Dr. RML Hospital. It was opined therein that ‘the possibility of the
injuries mentioned in the MLC being caused by this weapon or a
similar weapon cannot be ruled out.’
9. The bail application filed by the petitioner before the learned
Trial Court was dismissed vide order dated 21.10.2024, which has led
to the filing of the present petition.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
testimony of the material witnesses examined on behalf of the
prosecution have been placed on record, to which a short reply about
their testimony has been filed on behalf of the petitioner.
11. While praying for the grant of bail, the learned counsel submits
that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for over seven years,
since his arrest on 15.04.2018. Moreover, the petitioner was arrested
after almost 15 days of the alleged date of the offence. Furthermore,
out of the total 43 prosecution witnesses, 3 have been dropped, and
only 19 witnesses have been examined over a span of more than six
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHIM KAPOOR BAIL APPLN. 4238/2024
Signing Date:16.07.2025
Page 4 of 7
20:51:33
years and ten months. He submits that even though only the official
witnesses, i.e., the police officials and the doctor, remain to be
examined, it would still take considerable time to conclude trial and
the petitioner is already suffering a long period of incarceration.
12. He submits that the petitioner was apprehended solely on the
basis of his disclosure statement and there is not a single eyewitness,
who has witnessed the crime alleged to have been committed by the
petitioner. The case of the prosecution, the learned counsel submits,
rests upon the statements of certain witnesses, who claimed to have
heard whispers mentioning the names of the accused persons,
however, none of them has witnessed the occurrence of the alleged
crime or the presence of the petitioner at the spot.
13. The learned counsel submits that prosecution has failed to prove
the recovery of the mobile phone at the instance of the petitioner as
the witness to the recovery of the mobile phone of the deceased has
been dropped from the list of witnesses, being untraceable. Moreover,
he submits that many of the prosecution witnesses have either been
dropped by the prosecution or have turned hostile.
14. Lastly, learned counsel submits that the petitioner’s minor
daughter needs his care and support after the death of his mother and
the petitioner’s father being aged is not in a position to take care of the
minor daughter of the petitioner, as his wife has remarried.
15. The learned APP for the State, while seeking dismissal of the
bail application, submits that the petitioner is involved in committing
a heinous crime of having murdered, along with his co-accused, an
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHIM KAPOOR BAIL APPLN. 4238/2024
Signing Date:16.07.2025
Page 5 of 7
20:51:33
unknown person, on a petty issue of using a space for sleeping over
the footpath.
16. He further submits that some of the prosecution witnesses are
not traceable and thus were dropped, however the other material
witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution.
17. He submits that the prosecution case is at the fag end, as only
the police witnesses and the doctor remain to be examined. He further
submits that the petitioner is also involved in another murder case
during the same period bearing FIR No. 22/2018 registered under
Section 302 of the IPC at Police Station Mandir Marg, and that the
mobile phone of the deceased was recovered at the instance of the
petitioner.
18. Furthermore, intimation of the hearing of the present bail
application before this Court was sent to the brother of the deceased
through IO, who had appeared in person and opposed the present
application.
19. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
learned APP for the State as well as the brother of the deceased, and
upon perusal of the record, it emerges that it is alleged that the
petitioner along with the co-accused were involved in inflicting
injuries to the victim, who later succumbed to his injuries and the
trial is currently underway. As per the status report, witnesses PW-1 to
PW-6 and PW-9 have been examined. Admittedly, PW-9 has not
supported the case of the prosecution. However, the other witnesses
have supported the case of the prosecution.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHIM KAPOOR BAIL APPLN. 4238/2024 Signing Date:16.07.2025 Page 6 of 7 20:51:33
20. Although the petitioner has been in custody for more than 7
years in the present case, he has also been convicted in a similar case
arising out of FIR No. 22/2018, which was initially registered at
Police Station Mandir Marg under Section 302 of the IPC, however,
upon conclusion of trial, the petitioner was convicted under Section
304 of the IPC.
21. As per the nominal roll of the petitioner, in FIR No. 22/2018,
petitioner was sentenced to the custody period of 6 years, 8 months,
and 5 days, which was already undergone by him and a fine of
₹20,000/- was imposed upon him.
22. In view of the above, specifically that petitioner has been
convicted for a similar offence committed during the same period
when he was arrested for commission of the present crime. The trial is
underway and 19 prosecution witnesses have already been examined.
As per learned APP, 03 witnesses have been dropped and only police
officials and doctors remain to be examined. Therefore, this Court is
not inclined to release the petitioner on regular bail. Accordingly, the
present petition is dismissed.
SHALINDER KAUR, J
JULY 15, 2025/SK
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHIM KAPOOR BAIL APPLN. 4238/2024
Signing Date:16.07.2025
Page 7 of 7
20:51:33