Sachin Pal v. The State NCT of Delhi

Delhi High Court · 03 Sep 2025 · 2025:DHC:7688
Girish Kathpalia
BAIL APPLN. 1614/2025
2025:DHC:7688
criminal petition_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed the accused's bail application in a firearm injury case, citing strong prosecution evidence and lack of diligence by the accused's counsel.

Full Text
Translation output
BAIL APPLN. 1614/2025
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 03.09.2025
BAIL APPLN. 1614/2025
SACHIN PAL .....Petitioner
Through: Father of accused/applicant in person
VERSUS
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, APP for State
WITH
SI Arun and SI Kamal, PS Prem
Nagar
CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)

1. The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 359/2024 of PS Prem Nagar for offence under Section 109(1)/351(3) of BNS and Section 25/27 of Arms Act.

2. The prosecution case, as unfolded from FIR on statement of the injured is as follows. On 03.07.2024 at about 10:00pm while returning home, he saw his neighbour Kanta quarrelling with the other neighbour Sachin (the present accused/applicant). When the injured complainant de facto tried to pacify them, the accused/applicant took out his pistol and with the intention to kill him triggered the same causing firearm injury on right side of his abdomen. The injured complainant de facto was taken to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital from where he was referred to RML Hospital. The entire incident narrated above was captured on CCTV camera already installed on the spot. IO has shown me the said CCTV footage in his mobile BAIL APPLN. 1614/2025 pages phone, described with timelines in the status report filed by prosecution side.

3. On the first date (29.04.2025), some proxy counsel appeared for the accused/applicant. On the next date (27.05.2025), again adjournment was requested on behalf of accused/applicant. Once again, today nobody appeared on behalf of accused/applicant in the first call and matter was passed over. But even in the second call in this post-lunch session, counsel for accused/applicant has not appeared. It seems that counsel for accused/applicant is not interested in pursuing this matter. I find no reason to adjourn this bail application, blocking the dockets.

4. As per learned APP, one of the eyewitnesses is yet to be examined in trial and the other public witnesses have supported the prosecution.

5. Considering the overall circumstances described above, presently I do not find it a fit case to release the accused/applicant on bail. The bail application is dismissed. However, the accused/applicant, if so advised, may file fresh bail application after testimony of the remaining eyewitness.

6. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for being conveyed to the accused/applicant.

GIRISH KATHPALIA (JUDGE) SEPTEMBER 03, 2025