Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
AJAY SHARMA
S/o Sh. Chander Dev R/o C-59, Rajiv Nagar, Begumpur, Delhi .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vishwajeet Kumar, Mr. Nandan Kumar Rai, Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Mr. Kumar Amit Singh, Advocates.
N.C.T. OF DELHI
Through SHO P.S. Kanjhwala, Delhi .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State.
JUDGMENT
1. First Bail Application has been filed by the Applicant/Ajay Sharma under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, seeking the grant of Regular Bail in FIR No. 67 of 2020, P.S. Kanjhawala, under Section 302/201/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.
2. Briefly stated, it is the case of the Applicant/Ajay Sharma S/o Chander Dev r/o C- 59-C, Rajeev Nagar, Begumpur, Delhi, that he is a lawabiding citizen of India and is a permanent resident of C-59 Rajiv Nagar, Begumpur Delhi. The Applicant submits has been in Judicial Custody since 16.10.2020, i.e. for approximately 5 years.
3. The Applicant submits that on 19.02.2020; vide DD No. 72-B, telephonic information was received at 09:25 p.m. For appropriate action, the matter was handed over to ASI Anil Kumar No. 174/RD, who along with Ct. Subhash No. 1397/RD was to the spot, where Ct. Hawa Singh was already present, who told them that the labourers had been taken to the Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangolpuri, Delhi, by ERV vehicle. A black Scorpio Car numbered DL 8CAV 3490 was parked in the middle of the road with broken glass panes. Further, empty bullet shells were scattered all over the road and there were holes in the car due to the bullet shots. Glass pieces, empty shells, bullet leads and blood were found inside the car and on the seats as well. A mobile phone was found lying between the front seats of the car with a damaged upper part. A huge crowd of passers-by had gathered at the spot, however no eye witness of the incident was found.
4. The investigations were done by the SHO along with his other staff, on the spot. The Mobile Crime Team inspected the spot and took photographs. 50 empty cartridges lying at different places around the road outside the vehicle and below the vehicle at the crime scene, were picked up. Further, the blood lying on the driver's seat of the car, was also picked up.
5. Later, at the scene of crime, the ASI met Mr. Sachin, son of Rajbir Singh, resident of village Karala, Delhi who disclosed that the Scorpio Car belongs to his brother Anchal Kumar. He subsequently identified the deceased to be his brother Anchal Kumar, who had been shot dead by some unknown person. Due to deep shock, Mr. Sachin Kumar did not give any statement at the scene of crime, nor were any eyewitnesses found.
6. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid events, the FIR bearing NO. 67/2020 was registered at P.S. Kanjhawala under Section 302 and 34 IPC read with Section 25, 27, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act.
7. Thereafter, the Police collected the MLC No. 2813/20 of the unidentified deceased person, who had been declared brought dead at 9:53PM from Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangolpuri, Delhi. The and Post Mortem was conducted.
8. The Applicant submits that during the course of the investigation, the statements of Rajbir Singh, Sh. Sachin Kumar were recorded, but there were no specific allegations against the Applicant. All the allegations were general in nature and were made as an afterthought. The Applicant further submits that the date of the incident was 19.02.2020 and the statements of the father and brother were recorded on 20.02.2020, which shows that both the statements were given as an afterthought, merely to falsely implicate the Applicant.
9. The Applicant states that the Chargesheet has already been filed and investigation completed. The Charges have been framed under Sections 302, 120B and 34 IPC against the Applicant and other co-accused persons and the matter is at the stage of Prosecution evidence. The Examination in Chief of the Complainant Rajbir Singh, has been completed before the Ld. Trial Court.
10. The Applicant had filed a Bail Application before the Ld. Trial Court, which was dismissed vide Order dated 02.04.2025 without assigning any cogent reason. The custody of the Applicant is longer than that of the other co-accused persons.
11. The Applicant further submits that there were only two public witnesses in this case, and one witness has already been examined. The remaining witnesses are police officials, and there is no possibility of tampering of evidence in any matter. Till date, only one prosecution witness has been examined out of 49 witnesses. The trial is likely to take long.
12. The Applicant asserts that he is a permanent resident of Delhi having family ties and relations and the there is no likelihood of his tampering with the evidence or absconding or misusing the bail, if so granted.
13. A Status Report has been handed over by the Ld. Prosecutor on 16.09.2025 wherein it has been submitted that during the course of the investigation, it was revealed that in 2019, Applicant and his associates, namely, Paras and Sumit had caused fatal gunshot injuries to Anchal Kumar, for which FIR No. 157 of 2019 under Section 307/34 IPC and 25/27/54/59 Arms Act, was registered and all three accused persons i.e. Anchil Kumar, Paras and Sumit were arrested and sent to jail. After completion of investigation, the Chargesheet has been submitted in the Ld. Court and the Case is pending trial.
14. During the investigations, the father and brother of the deceased, Anchil Kumar were examined, wherein they alleged that two criminals namely Deepak Dabas @ Teetar and Dinesh Karala had called them to compromise with Parvesh Kumar and the compromise was finalized at Rs.
15. Anchil Kumar got Bail from the Court in December, 2019 and returned to his home. The father and brother of Anchil Kumar further alleged that during his period in jail, the group members of Deepak @ Teetar and Dinesh Karala used to trouble Anchil in jail. Furthermore, family members of Dinesh Karala along with Parvesh Kumar and others, asked for money and threatened them with dire consequences. Subsequently, they added that Deepak @ Teetar had called from jail over mobile phone of Anchil Kumar and directed him to give money, but he refused to pay the same.
16. During further course of investigation, efforts were made to identify the accused persons. CCTV Footages of nearby places were analysed and some other accused persons were identified. One accused person, namely, Parvesh Kumar, was arrested. He disclosed his complicity in the crime along with his Associates, namely, Harsh @ Bharat, Ajay and Ajit Kumar @ Maddy for doing reccee of deceased Anchil Kumar.
17. Upon the telephonic directions of accused Deepak Dabas @ Teetar, (who is in jail), all of these persons, did reccee of Anchil Kumar, on the day of incident.
18. Thereafter, the deceased was killed by two other assailants, Jitendra @ Gogi and Kuldeep Mann @ Fazza, who were informed about the deceased’s movements by the accused Deepak Dabas @ Teetar, based on information provided to him by Ajit Kumar @ Maddy and his associates.
19. It was submitted that the co-accused, namely, Harsh @ Bharat and Ajit Kumar @ Maddy were arrested by Special Cell, SWR/Jankapuri in case FIR No. 47/2020 dated21.02.2020 under Section 25 Arms Act, PS Spl. Cell (SB), in which both of them disclosed about their involvement in the conspiracy of murder of deceased. Accordingly, both of them were formally arrested in this case.
20. During interrogation, both of them had disclosed their involvement along with their other associates, Ajay and Parvesh Kumar, on the directions of one Deepak Dabas @ Teetar, who is in jail, in the conspiracy of murder of deceased. They further disclosed that while reccee regarding movement of deceased Anchil Kumar was done by the co-accused Harsh @ Bharat and Ajit Kumar @ Maddy and his Associates on the day of incident and information was passed on by these accused persons, some other assailants at the instance of Deepak Dabas @ Teetar, fired more than 50 bullets on deceased Anchil Kumar while he was going towards Kanjhawala in his Black Scorpio Car.
21. Further, the accused Deepak Dabas @ Teetar s/o Rajbir Singh and the assailants, namely, Jitender @ Gogi s/o Mehar Singh & Kuldeep Maan @ Fajja s/o Jagbir Singh were also arrested. It is stated that both of them have subsequently died.
22. During the course of investigation, the Taxi owner identified accused Parvesh Kumar and stated that he had given his Taxi Hundai Xcent to accused Parvesh Kumar and the Applicant herein on the day of incident, which was returned back to him in the night hours. The relevant CCTV Footages, in which accused Parvesh Kumar has been seen doing reccee on the day of incident, were seized.
23. After completion of investigation, Chargesheet against all accused persons was submitted before Ld. Court, on 20.05.2020.
24. The role of Applicant/Ajay Sharma as revealed during the investigation was that he was an active conspirator and participant in the murder of deceased Anchil. The Applicant was arrested on 16.10.2020. and from his possession one mobile phone (Make VIVO 1603) was recovered, which was used by him for coordinating and planning the crime.
25. The Applicant disclosed that through the said mobile phone and SIM No. 9953430819, he remained in constant touch with his co-accused persons, namely Parvesh Kumar, Ajit @ Maddy, Harsh @ Bharat, and with jail inmate Deepak @ Titar through WhatsApp calls and normal calls, and they hatched the conspiracy to eliminate deceased Anchil.
26. The Applicant not only participated in the conspiracy, but also been involved in the recce of the deceased and had informed the co-accused about the movements and position of the deceased. This information facilitated the murder which took place on 19.02.2020. After the incident, he destroyed vital evidence by breaking the SIM card used for conspiracy and threw it near Balaji Mandir, Rama Vihar, Delhi. The recovery of the said mobile phone, the certified CDR/CAF, witness statements, and disclosure of the accused, cumulatively establish his active role in planning, conspiracy and execution of the murder.
27. The Applicant was arrested on 16.10.2020. The other suspects, namely, Dinesh, his brother Naveen @ Sonu, his mother Sunita and Ravi @ Kidi were interrogated, but no direct linking evidence against them surfaced during the investigation. A Supplementary Chargesheet against the Applicant was prepared, and all the suspects were kept in Column no. 12.
28. The Bail is opposed on the ground of the gravity of offence committed by the Applicant and his involvement in another cases. It is also asserted that there is a threat to the family of deceased and a PSO for the safety of the family, has been deputed. It is submitted that the present matter was a result of Gang War. The case is pending trial and the Applicant may influence the witnesses. Bail Application of the Applicant is strongly opposed as he may jump the bail.
29. The Ld. Public Prosecutor has submitted that the Applicant is one of the main conspirators. He submits that a phone recovered from him establishes that he had been in constant touch with the other accused persons and the Applicant had done reccee.
30. Ld. Counsel for the Applicant has however, counter argued that the said phone does not belong to him and is registered in the name of coaccused Parvesh Kumar. It is further stated that the allegations against him are purely on the basis of the CDR Report. It is settled law that CDR analysis, cannot be sole basis of conviction. Submissions heard and record perused.
31. As per the Prosecution, the role assigned to the Applicant/Ajay Sharma is that he was the co-conspirator and had played a significant role in doing the reccee and thus, participated in the commission of the offence. The Applicant was placed in Column No.12 in the Supplementary Chargesheet.
32. As per the Prosecution, the evidence against the Applicant is the disclosure Statement which is not admissible in evidence. The other evidence is the CDR report and the location derived therefrom. The Mobile phone was in the name of co-accused Parvesh Kumar, which was allegedly being used by him.
33. In Azad v. State of GNCT of Delhi and Another, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1769, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held that CDR can only be used to corroborate any other evidence and cannot be the sole basis for conviction. It observed thus: “16....CDR data may be an important and effective piece of evidence which may facilitate and assists courts in ascertaining the presence of different participants in commission of an offence including the complainant and proposed accused at one particular place or location which may be their presence at or near the place of occurrence. However, CDR data can only be taken as supporting or corroborative piece of evidence and conviction cannot be made solely on basis of CDR data. CDRs proved and relied on by the prosecution only proved that the appellants Jitender @ Jitu and Azad @ Gaurav, on day of incident, were present near place of occurrence/incident but it is not proved that they have actually participated in commission of offence as per complaint Ex. PW1/A. The respective counsels for the appellants Jitender @ Jitu and Azad @ Gaurav rightly argued that CDR data cannot be safely relied on to establish their criminality for the offence punishable under section 395 IPC. The argument advanced by the Additional Public Prosecutor regarding reliance on CDR data is without much force.”
34. Further, in Saloni Arora v. State, 2009 SCC OnLine Del 1669, it has been held that mere telephonic conversation with a co-accused, is not incriminating evidence and CDR records would be tested during trial.
35. The Applicant has been in Judicial Custody since 16.10.2020, i.e. approximately 5 years. The Chargesheet in has already been filed and the investigation completed. The Charges have also been framed, and the matter is at the stage of Prosecution Evidence. There are two Public Witnesses, while the rest were Police Officials. However, out of all the 49 witnesses, the chief examination of only one Public Witness has been conducted. It is evident that the trial is likely to take long to get concluded.
36. The Applicant is a permanent resident of Delhi having family ties and relations. There is nothing to show that he is likely to abscond. The Prosecution has submitted that on account of the threats to the witnesses, PSO has been provided to them. However, there is no assertion that the threats are emanating from the Applicant herein.
37. Considering the nature of incriminating evidence and all the aforesaid factors, the Applicant/Accused is granted Regular Bail subject to the following conditions: a) The Petitioner/Accused shall furnish a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and one surety of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. b) The Petitioner/Accused shall appear before the Court as and when the matter is taken up for hearing; c) The Petitioner/Accused shall provide his mobile number/changed mobile number to the IO concerned which shall be kept in working condition at all times; d) The Petitioner/Accused shall not indulge in any criminal activity and shall not communicate or intimidate the witnesses. e) In case the Petitioner/Accused changes his residential address, the same shall be intimated to learned Trial Court and to the concerned I.O.
38. The copy of this Order be communicated to the concerned Jail Superintendent, as well as, to the learned Trial Court.
39. The Bail Application along with pending Applications, if any, is accordingly disposed of.
JUDGE OCTOBER 15, 2025