Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 05.08.2025 ,,,,,,,,,, BAIL APPLN. 1792/2025 & CRL.M.A. 14481/2025
(exemption from filing copy of latest bail status report), CRL.M.A. 20546/2025 (early hearing) CRL.M.A. 20547/2025
(for direction to place on record medical reports) &
RENU DEVI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pankaj Srivastav,Advocate.
Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP
Kumar AND
SUMIT .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Adv. (appearance not given)
Through: Mr. Aman Usman, APP
Naraina
JUDGMENT
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
1. These are bail applications under Section 483 of BNSS read with Section 528 of BNSS filed on behalf of the applicants Renu Devi and Sumit in case FIR No.63/2023, under Sections 302/120B/212/34 IPC and Section 25/27 of Arms Act registered at P.S. Naraina. Submissions on behalf of the applicant-Renu Devi
2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant-Renu Devi submits that she has been falsely implicated in the present case. She has no connection with the allegations made against her. Her detention is totally unlawful and is based solely on a related narrative that does not provide adequate evidentiary support.
3. It is submitted that applicant has nothing to do with the alleged offence. She has been in judicial custody since 01.04.2023 and despite the passage of considerable time, the trial has not progressed significantly inasmuch as lot of witnesses still remain to be examined. It is further submitted that the entire case against the applicant rests on disclosure statement of the co-accused persons which is inadmissible in evidence. She has been wrongly portrayed as a master mind in the case. She is an elderly lady and is suffering from various ailments and has no previous criminal involvement. She undertakes to abide by any conditions imposed on her. Submissions of the applicant-Sumit
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant-Sumit submits that the case against the applicant is on the basis that one SIM having phone no. 9310412146 registered in his name was being used by co-accused Saurabh Tyagi who has since been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 22.01.2025. He further submits that the role ascribed to the present applicant in the disclosure statement of coaccused Renu is only that he would engage the deceased Kamal Thakur in communication and drive the scooty.
5. It is further submitted that no CCTV footage has been seized by the police officials which may reveal the involvement of the present applicant. No recovery has been effected from the present applicant. No CDRs have been placed on record which may prove any connection of the applicant with the co-accused.
6. It is further submitted that there is no evidence that the applicant conspired with the co-accused for the commission of murder of the deceased. The applicant has clean antecedents and has never been implicated in any criminal activity. He has deep roots in the society and is in judicial custody for the last two years and there is no likelihood of trial getting completed in near future. Submissions of learned Addl. P.P. for the State
7. Learned APP has opposed the bail applications of both the applicants. It is submitted that applicant-Renu is the main master mind behind the murder of deceased Kamal Thakur, and for the said purpose she hired co-accused Sachin, Sumit, Rohit and Bharat @ Mithu and paid them Rs. 50,000/-. It is submitted that Renu was present at the spot of incident and Kamal Thakur was murdered by coaccused at her instance. He further submits that on the analysis of CDR of applicant-Renu, it was found that she was in contact with coaccused Bharat.
8. It is further submitted that after committing the murder, Renu left Delhi and thus there is presumption that she may avoid the proceedings and jump the bail and even threaten the prosecution witnesses and tamper with the evidence. It has been further stated that PW-Ravi (son of deceased) has already filed complaints regarding threats to his life, and therefore, under these circumstances, applicant- Renu is not entitled for the grant of bail.
9. He further submits that applicant Sumit played a vital role in the commission of the crime inasmuch as he was riding the scooty on which co-accused Sachin was sitting as a pillion rider who caused gun shot injuries to the victim.
10. It is argued that the allegations qua both the applicants are grave and serious in nature, and therefore, considering the same and the severity of punishment which the conviction may entail, the applicants are not entitled for the grant of bail. Analysis and Conclusion
11. As per the status report, Kamal Thakur was declared brought dead at the hospital and an FIR was registered under Section 302 IPC. The postmortem report revealed that cause of death was cranio cerebral injury caused by gunshot injury on the head.
12. During investigation, Ravi Kumar, (son of the deceased) was interrogated and his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C was recorded. In his statement, he expressed his suspicion on the applicant Renu Devi because she was having old rivalry with the deceased.
13. Applicant Renu was arrested by the police. On interrogation, she confessed her offence and disclosed that deceased Kamal Thakur had filed numerous complaints at police station, MCD and High Court for the demolition of the temple made by her, and therefore, she had hired Sachin, Rohit and Sumit Kumar through Bharat for killing Kamal Thakur.
14. The present case is based on circumstantial evidence inasmuch there is no ocular evidence available. Admittedly, gunshot injuries have been caused by Sachin. The CDR record does not show that Renu was in constant touch with any of the co-accused persons except Bharat.
15. Upon query of the Court, the learned APP under instructions from the IO fairly states that no such evidence is available on record except the disclosure statement of the applicant and the co-accused.
16. Similarly, there is no evidence on record to indicate that Sumit was riding the scooty on which Sachin was sitting as a pillion rider at the time of the incident. There is also no evidence of paying Rs. 50,000/- to the hired killers by Renu. Ravi Kumar who is witness of motive has since been examined. Thus there is no possibility of threatening or intimidating the witnesses.
17. The Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI
“21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.
22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, “necessity” is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary
23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson.”
18. Investigation is complete and charge sheet has already stands filed. Applicants are therefore not required for any investigation. Prosecution has cited as many as 42 witnesses. Lot of witnesses still remains to be examined, and therefore, the trial is not likely to conclude very soon. The nominal rolls of the applicants do not indicate any previous criminal antecedents.
19. Co-accused, namely, Saurabh Tyagi has since been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 22.01.2025 passed in Bail Appln. No. 4694/2024. The applicants herein are in judicial custody since more than two years.
20. Hence, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, nature and quality of evidence, this Court is of the opinion that applicants/accused Renu and Sumit ought to be enlarged on bail. They are therefore admitted to regular bail upon their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- with a surety of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court and subject to the following conditions:
(i) Applicants will not leave the country without prior permission of the
(ii) Applicants shall provide his permanent address to the Trial Court, which will be verified by the concerned Investigation Officer (I.O.). Additionally, the Applicants shall intimate the said Court and to the I.O. by way of an affidavit regarding any change in residential address.
(iii) Applicants shall appear before the Trial Court as and when the matter is taken up for hearing.
(iv) Applicants shall provide all mobile numbers to the I.O. concerned, which shall be kept in working condition at all times and shall not switch off or change the mobile number without prior intimation to the I.O. concerned.
(v) Applicants shall not indulge in any criminal activity and shall not communicate with or come in contact with any of the prosecution witnesses.
(vi) The Applicants will not tamper with the evidence of the case.
21. Nothing stated in this order shall amount to an expression on merits of the case and any observation made in the order is purely for the purpose of deciding the question of grant of bail.
22. Copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent Jail for compliance and information.
23. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J AUGUST 05, 2025