[ad_1]
Delhi High Court
Sahil Alias Bhondi vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 31 July, 2025
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 31st July, 2025
+ BAIL APPLN. 1172/2025
SAHIL ALIAS BHONDI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Gautam Khazanchi, Mr. Vaibhav
Dubey, Mr. Khush and Ms. Yukta
Batra, Advocates.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Priyanka Dalal, APP for the State
with SI Geetam Singh, PS Badarpur
Inspector Rajesh Brar, Div OND
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
ARUN MONGA, J. (Oral)
1. The instant bail application has been filed seeking regular bail in case
FIR No. 11/2024 dated 10.01.2024 registered under Sections 302/34 IPC at
Police Station Badarpur, Delhi.
2. Case of the prosecution as per FIR allegation is that: On the night of
09.01.2024, at about 2:30 AM, HC Natvar while patrolling near Meat
Chowk, Gautampuri Phase-1, saw four boys dragging an injured person
covered in blood. On seeing the police motorcycle, the said boys left the
injured person and ran towards BIW Colony NTPC.
2.1 On approaching the injured person, it was found that he had no
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA BAIL APPLN. 1172/2025 Page 1 of 7
NEGI
Signing Date:31.07.2025
07:28:03
clothes on the upper part of his body, had sustained multiple injuries caused
by sharp weapons like a knife, and appeared to be dead.
2.2 Thereafter, near the NTPC gate, HC Natvar saw SHO, his driver Ct.
Rajiv, and HC Rajesh chasing three-four boys. HC Natvar identified them as
the same boys who had left the injured person at Meat Chowk. HC Natvar
and HC Rajaram surrounded the boys from the front. On being surrounded,
the four boys started running in different directions. One of them hit HC
Natvar while trying to escape, causing both of them to fall, but HC Natvar
managed to apprehend him. SHO caught one boy, Ct. Rajiv caught one near
the slums of Subhash Camp, and HC Rajesh caught the fourth boy with the
help of HC Rajaram.
2.3 On interrogation, the name of the boy caught by HC Natvar was
revealed as Harshit S/o Raju; the boy caught by Ct. Rajiv was Sumit S/o
Johney @ Sanjeev; the one caught by SHO was Armaan @ Kurru S/o
Surender; and the one caught by HC Rajesh/HC Rajaram was Saif Ali Khan
@ Sameer @ Fuddan S/o Mohd. Salim. They disclosed that a fifth boy,
Sahil @ Bhondi S/o Sanjay/applicant, was also involved in the incident and
had fled in another direction. It was stated that all five were involved in the
incident and were dragging the injured/deceased person, later identified as
Gaurav S/o Uddham Singh, to dispose of him in the drain. On seeing the
police at Meat Chowk, they left him and ran away.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant contends the applicant has been
falsely implicated. He was picked up from his house without any
incriminating material linking him to the offence. The chargesheet filed on
03.04.2024, under Sections 302/34 IPC, contains no recovery or discovery at
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA BAIL APPLN. 1172/2025 Page 2 of 7
NEGI
Signing Date:31.07.2025
07:28:03
his instance, and his alleged involvement is based solely on the belated
disclosure statements of co-accused persons.
3.1 It is further submitted that the applicant was not present at the scene
of offence, and the initial GD No. 7A mentions only four unknown persons,
not including the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant further states
that the applicant was earlier granted interim bail for fifteen days on
25.04.2024 by the Ld. ASJ, Saket Court, due to the death of his child
whereby the applicant duly surrendered in compliance with the directions
passed by the Trial Court and there is no allegation of misuse of liberty or
tampering with evidence during that period.
3.2 Learned counsel argues that the prosecution’s case is purely
circumstantial, and the statements relied upon are not substantive piece of
evidence in terms of Section 30 of the Evidence Act. The alleged instigator,
Bhavana, has neither been named as an accused nor a suspect in the present
matter, rendering the chargesheet incomplete qua the applicant, entitling him
to statutory/default bail.
3.3 He urges that the applicant satisfies the triple test for bail laid down
by the Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram v. CBI, (2020) 13 SCC 337 as
there is no risk of tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or flight.
It is argued that the applicant has already spent more than one year three
months and 2 days of incarceration in custody pending trial, especially when
the investigation is complete.
4. Opposing the bail plea, learned APP would submit that the applicant
is involved in the heinous crime and trial is at nascent stage and he cannot be
let off. As a juvenile also he was implicated in another similar crime, she
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA BAIL APPLN. 1172/2025 Page 3 of 7
NEGI
Signing Date:31.07.2025
07:28:03
would point out.
5. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions and
perused the case file.
6. The applicant stands before this Court claiming himself to be
innocent. He claims that merely because as a juvenile he was involved in a
similar incident, he has been made a suspect in the case despite there being
no material, whatsoever, of any kind against him, except for the fact that he
was seen in CCTV half an hour prior at the scene of occurrence where the
entire incident took place. Only 4 persons were videographed in the CCTV
at the time of the incident and have also been identified by the eye
witnesses. The eye witnesses have duly supported the CCTV footage while
recording of their statements under Section 161 by the investigating officer
and that they have not named the applicant.
7. In fact the matter was earlier heard by this Court on 21.07.2025 and
the following order was passed:
“1. Learned APP for the State seeks time to file a fresh status
report for the roll attributed to the petitioner other than the
disclosure statement of the four co-accused persons. Let the same
be filed before the next date of hearing.
2. List on 31.07.2025.
3. In the meantime, Trial Court record in digitized form be
requisitioned for the next date of hearing.”
8. Apropos, fresh status report has been filed by the prosecution. The
relevant thereof is extracted hereinbelow:
“4. That during preliminary interrogation, the apprehended
accused revealed that a fifth person, Sahil @ Bhondi (the present
applicant), was also involved and had gone elsewhere after theSignature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA BAIL APPLN. 1172/2025 Page 4 of 7
NEGI
Signing Date:31.07.2025
07:28:03
incident. The four accused were dragging the deceased, Gaurav
Kumar S/o Udham Singh, intending to dispose of the body in a
nearby drain. Based on the disclosure of accused Armaan @
Kurru, the applicant was also arrested on his instance.
5. That on the instance of accused Armaan @ Kurru, the murder
weapon (knife) was recovered from beneath a water drum in
Subhash Camp. The clothes and footwear worn by the accused at
the time of the incident were seized and sent to FSL for forensic
examination. The FSL result has been received and the blood of
deceased is found on the murder weapon, clothes/footwears of
accused Armaan @ Kurru, CCL Saif Ali Khan and CCL Harshit.
The blood of deceased is not found on the clothes/sandals of
accused Sahil @ Bhondi. However, the blood of CCL Sumit was
found on his own clothes/footwear.
x x x x x x x x x x
10(a) Camera No. 5306363 (Meat Chowk): As per the
footage dated 09.01.2024, at 22:31:14 hrs, Armaan @ Kurru,
Sumit, Harshit, Saif Ali Khan, Sahil @ Bhondi, and their two
friends Natthu and Bibbo can be seen coming from the Allu Park
side towards Meat Chowk behind three boys and a rickshaw.
They appear to be searching for someone at Meat Chowk.
On 10.01.2024, at 00:29:36 hrs, the deceased Gaurav Kumar is
seen heading from BIW Colony towards DSUIB Office
(Makwana Chowk).
At 00:30:10 hrs, CCL Saif Ali Khan is seen running towards
Meat Chowk and then turning back, calling his companions. At
00:30:24 hrs, CCL Harshit joins him, and both head towards
DSUIB Office in the same direction as Gaurav Kumar.
At 00:31:35 hrs, some individuals are seen behind the electric
pole and kiosk at Meat Chowk. At 00:31:47 hrs, two of them
Sumit and Armaan @ Kurru Their associate Sahil @ Bhondi is
seen leaving in an auto at head towards Meat Chowk. 00:31:46
hrs.
At 00:31:56 hrs, Armaan @ Kurru and Sumit are seen moving
towards DSUIB Office.
At 00:55:55 hrs, Harshit is seen coming from the incident site
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA BAIL APPLN. 1172/2025 Page 5 of 7
NEGI
Signing Date:31.07.2025
07:28:03
towards Meat Chowk with a torch or mobile phone in hand. On
seeing the police patrol motorcycle, he flees towards BIW Colony
NTPC. Behind him, Sumit, Saif Ali Khan, and Armaan are also
seen running in the same direction. The police patrol motorcycle
follows them and returns to Meat Chowk at 00:58:00 hrs and
inspects the deceased.
supplementary report filed before the concerned court.
12. That during the course of further investigation the eye
witnesses Abhishek, Raman, Shankar & Sumitra@ Lali were
examined in the case u/s 161 Cr.P.C.and their statements were
recorded. They seen four accused persons namely Armaan @
Kurru, Sumit, Harshit and Saif Ali Khan stabbing the Gaurav
Kumar @ Paggal with knife in front of DSUIB Office. They did
not see applicant Sahil @ Bhondi at the spot.
13. That from the analysis of CCTV footage, it appears that the
applicant Sahil @ Bhondi was not present while the deceased
was stabbed by Armaan @ Kurru, CCLs Harshit, Sumit and Saif
Ali Khan but he was present just before the incident and was
seen with the accused persons when they were planning to search
and kill the Gaurav Kumar @ Paggal. He was present in Allu
Park with the other accused persons, he was present at meat
chowk just before the time when the other four accused persons
started chasing Gaurav Kumar @ Paggal.”
9. A perusal of the aforesaid clearly reveals that, to the extent that the
applicant was neither seen at the spot at the time of occurrence at 12:39 AM
nor named by the eye witnesses nor even found in the CCTV footage, seems
to be correct.
10. Though the fact that he is seen in the CCTV footage half an hour prior
to the incident is also disputed by the applicant, be that as it may, the
applicant was seen about 8 minutes, i.e. at 12:30 AM in the CCTV footage
leaving in an auto rickshaw, which seems to be the contributory factor of his
being part of the group of the other four co-accused, who were caught in the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA BAIL APPLN. 1172/2025 Page 6 of 7
NEGI
Signing Date:31.07.2025
07:28:03
CCTV footage. He has thus been arrayed on the basis of mere suspicion as a
co-accused. At this stage, the said suspicion remains a matter of trial.
11. Looking at the totality of the circumstances and the material
unearthed against him, to me, it appears a fit case for grant of bail.
12. The applicant is stated to be a young boy of 19 years and the only son
of his parents and being a family person, there is no likelihood of his
absconding if granted the concession of bail. Moreover, the same is also
borne out from the fact that he was accorded the concession of interim bail
by the Trial Court during pendency of the trial and he surrendered as per the
conditions of the bail and did not either abuse the said liberty or otherwise
misconducted himself during the bail period.
13. Taking wholesome view of the matter, the applicant is directed to be
enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial, subject to his furnishing bail
bonds and surety of equivalent amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court,
subject to the other conditions which are deemed appropriate to be imposed
by the learned Trial Court.
14. Any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of
disposing of the instant bail application and not to be construed, in any
manner, as any expression on the merits of the pending case and the trial
shall proceed without being influenced either way by the same.
15. The bail application is disposed of accordingly.
ARUN MONGA, J
JULY 31, 2025
kd/srh
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA BAIL APPLN. 1172/2025 Page 7 of 7
NEGI
Signing Date:31.07.2025
07:28:03
[ad_2]
Source link