Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 26th September, 2025
SALLAUDDIN
S/o.Mohd Akbar R/o. A-2070, Phase-I Metro Vihar, Holambi Kalan Delhi .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. D. K. Sharma, Ms. Seema and Mr. Mahkar Singh, Advs.
Through SHO P.S. Narela Industrial Area Delhi .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State
JUDGMENT
1. Regular Bail Application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’) [corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973] on behalf of the Applicant/Sallauddin in FIR No.149/2021 dated 29.03.2021 under Section 302/149/141/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) registered at PS Narela Industrial Area.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the present case was registered on the Complaint of one eye witness, Rahul, aged about 27 years who stated that on 29.03.2021 at around 6 PM, on the day of Holi when he was present at his house, his brother Bunty had gone to fetch water from DDA RO plant in the Park. Bunty returned from the park and informed that some boys had quarrelled with him. He stated that he, along with his family members and neighbours followed Bunty, when he went to the Park again. Bunty was stopped by the accused persons, namely, the Applicant/Sallauddin, Kayamuddin, Kundan, Kaushal, Rahul and Amit who were having drinks and playing loud music. When Bunty objected, they assaulted him. The Complainant/Rahul stated that Kayamuddin had assaulted Bunty with knife, Kaushal assaulted with a broken beer bottle over chest of Bunty. Later, all of them fled from the spot. Bunty was taken to MV Hospital, where his MLC was prepared with an alleged history of physical injury over chest with severe bleeding.
3. Consequently, a case under Section 307/34 IPC was registered. On the same day, at 11:30 PM, information regarding death of Bunty was received from BSA Hospital and accordingly, Section 302 IPC was added.
4. The post mortem if the deceased Bunty was conducted and the cause of death was opined as “Death was due to haemorrhagic shock consequent upon sharp edged injury to front of right upper chest via injury n.[2] & 3. All injuries were antemortem in nature, and fresh in duration. Injuries no.2,3,4,[5] were caused by sharp edged weapon while injuries no.1,6,7,8,[9] were caused by blunt weapon. Injuries no.2 (11 cm length wound over chest) & 3 (10 cm in length horizontally placed from middle on injury no.2) were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Viscera preserved to rule out any intoxication”
5. During the course of investigation, on 30.03.2021, the accused persons i.e. the Applicant/Sallauddin, Kayamuddin, Kaushal were arrested after interrogation and finding their involvement in the offence.
6. It is submitted that the Applicant had moved an Application for grant of Regular Bail before Ld. Trial Court but was dismissed vide Order 22.04.2024.
7. The Applicant has sought Bail on the grounds that he has been in Judicial Custody since 30.03.2021 and is a victim of false implication.
8. It is submitted that on the day of the alleged incident, it was the festival of Holi. The Applicant was returning home after completing his official duties. The Complainant has intentionally named the Applicant in this case because the Applicant’s brother was present at the scene. The Applicant was merely standing at the location to meet his brother. After sometime, the police officials came to the Applicant’s house and took him to the Police Station. After conducting an inquiry, they released him. However, the next day around 9:00 AM, the police returned and falsely implicated the Applicant in the case.
9. The investigation has been completed and the Prosecution has also filed the Chargesheet. The Applicant is no longer required for the purposed of further investigation. Prosecution has examined 16 witness and out of these, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 have been dropped by the Prosecution. Furthermore, the Prosecution Witnesses have not supported the case of the Prosecution.
10. It is submitted that it is a settled law that if trial take long time, then the Applicant is entitled to be released on Bail.
11. The Applicant has clean antecedents and no prior convictions. He is a young person and there is no chance of his absconding or tampering with Prosecution Evidence.
12. The Applicant’s first Regular Bail Application was dismissed by the Ld. ASJ, Delhi, on 06.01.2023. The second Regular Bail Application was withdrawn before the Ld. ASJ, Delhi, on 21.12.2023. Subsequently, the third Regular Bail Application was dismissed by the Ld. ASJ, Delhi, on 22.04.2024.
13. Thus, a prayer is made for grant of Regular Bail.
14. Status Report has been filed on behalf of the State detailing the facts of the case.
15. It is stated that efforts were made for other accused, but no clue was found. The two co-accused namely, Rahul and Amit are still absconding.
16. During the course of investigation, on 30.03.2021, the accused person/Applicant, Sallauddin, Kayamuddin, Kaushal were arrested after interrogation and finding their involvement in the offence. The Disclosure Statements of the accused persons were recorded. At the instance of coaccused, Kaushal, one broken piece of beer bottle was recovered which he had used in assault. At the instance of co-accused, Kayamuddin, one knife with which deceased was assaulted, was recovered.
17. During the course of investigation, subsequent opinion of weapons of offence i.e. knife and broken beer bottle was obtained from the Autopsy Surgeon, who opined that the injuries caused to the deceased could be possible by the weapons examines. The exhibits seized during the course of investigation, were sent to the FSL and the results have been submitted through the Supplementary Chargesheet.
18. During the course of investigation, other eye witnesses, namely, Smt. Sunita (mother of Bunty), Deepak (brother of deceased), Jai Kishan @ Jackey (neighbour), Smt. Sundra Rani (neighbour) were examined and their statements were recorded. All the eye witnesses confirmed that Bunty was assaulted by the accused persons with a knife and beer bottle. There were 09 eye witnesses and all have been examined.
19. Furthermore, the Chargesheet against the accused persons was filed on 13.06.2021 under Section 141/149/302/34 IPC. Charges have been framed vide Order dated 09.03.2022, under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC against all the four accused persons.
20. The matter is at the stage of Prosecution Evidence and matter is fixed for examination of public witnesses. It is stated that 19 witnesses have been examined and two witnesses namely, Chain Bai and Vikram have been dropped being repetitive. PW-2/Shushila, PW-3/Deepak, PW- 4/Manisha and PW-5/Savita have already been examined, out of total of 33 witnesses. The material witnesses have the eye witnesses have supported the Prosecution case on material aspects and confirmed the identity of the accused persons and have supported the theory of the Prosecution.
21. Lastly, the Applicant/Sallauddin has no previous criminal involvement.
22. The Bail Application is opposed on the grounds that the proceedings are at concluding stage. The witnesses have supported the Prosecution case. If the Applicant is released on Bail, there is a possibility of him infringing the Bail Conditions and influencing witnesses.
23. Thus, the present Bail Application is liable to be dismissed. Submissions heard and record perused.
24. The case of the prosecution is that on 29.03.2021, during the festival of Holi, the deceased, Bunty (brother of the Complainant) was fatally assaulted by a group of accused persons including the Applicant/Sallauddin, Kayamuddin, Kaushal and others. The deceased sustained fatal injuries from a knife and a broken beer bottle, resulting in haemorrhagic shock, resulting in his death.
25. To consider the contentions of the Applicant, it is pertinent to note that the investigation in the matter has been completed and the Prosecution has filed the Chargesheet. 09 eye witnesshave also been duly examined.Therefore, there is no possibility of the Applicant tampering with the Prosecution Evidence or influencing the material witnesses.
26. Furthermore, the Applicant has clean antecedents and no prior convictions.
27. As per the Status Report, the recovery of weapons was made pursuant to disclosure statements of co-accused persons i.e. a broken beer bottle was recovered on the instance of co-accused/Kaushal, and a knife was recovered on the instance of co-accused/Kayamuddin.
28. Lastly, the Applicant has been in Judicial Custody since 30.03.2021, i.e. around four years and 6 months. Out of a total of 33 witnesses, 19 public witnesses have been recorded. The trial is likely to take long to get concluded. Such prolonged incarceration without conclusion of trial, constitutes a violation of the fundamental right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Apex Court has consistently held that prolonged pre-trial detention infringes upon the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
29. In Tapas Kumar Palit vs. State of Chhattisgarh, Crl. Appeal No.738/2025 decided on 14.02.2025 (2024 INSC 222), the Supreme Court granted Bail to the accused under UAPA and IPC allegations. The Apex Court noted that while the charges were serious, the Appellant has no criminal antecedents, several recovery witnesses had turned hostile, and he had already spent five years as an undertrial with no clear end to the trial in sight. The Court underscored that regardless of the seriousness of the alleged offense, prolonged incarceration without conclusion of the trial infringes upon the accused’s constitutional rights, thereby warranting consideration for Bail.
30. Considering the totality of the circumstances as narrated above, the Applicant/Sallauddin is admitted to Regular Bail in FIR No.149/2021 PS Narela Industrial Area, upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- and one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, subject to the following conditions: a) Petitioner shall not leave Delhi/NCR without prior permission of the Court; b) Petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when the matter is taken up for hearing; c) Petitioner shall provide his mobile number to the IO concerned, which shall be kept in working condition at all times and in case he changes the mobile number, he would intimate the Investigating Officer concerned; d) Petitioner shall inform the IO and the Jail Superintendent of the address where he shall be available in Delhi; and e) Petitioner shall not try to contact, threaten or influence any of the witnesses of this case.
31. A copy of this Order be communicated to the learned Trial Court and as well as to the concerned Jail Superintendent.
32. Accordingly, the present Bail Application and pending Application are disposed of.
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J. SEPTEMBER 26, 2025