Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 10.07.2025
SUNIL@MAYA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhas Mishra, Advocate
Through: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, Additional Public Prosecutor for State for State
Vikash Fageria, PS Subzi Mandi Ms. Tanya Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.2
JUDGMENT
1. By way of the present petition under Section 483 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in FIR No. 303/2014 dated 26.06.2014, under Sections 302, 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 25, 27, 25 (54) and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Subzi Mandi, Delhi.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that the abovesaid FIR was lodged on the statement of the complainant - Kamal Kumar @ Sonu, on 26.06.2014 who alleged that on 25.06.2014, he along with Harish, Kamal, Rajeev @ Bunty, Sonu @ Pehlwan, Lala, and Giriraj, was partying at Subzi Mandi Railway Station, near Deenanath Road. At around 9:30 PM to 10:00 PM, the accused persons, namely, Karan, Sunil @ Kalu, Deepesh, Sunny @ Rakesh @ Sanjay, Vikrant, and Surender, arrived at the spot and started abusing Lala. When Rajeev @ Bunty and Sonu @ Pehlwan objected to such conduct, the accused persons became agitated and threatened them to remain present at the same place. It is further stated that the situation was, however, pacified by Rajeev @ Bunty, where-after the accused persons left the place.
3. At around 11:00 PM to 11:15 PM, while the complainant and his friends again gathered on an empty piece of land outside Subzi Mandi Railway Station, the accused persons came to the said location. The accused persons Sunil @ Kalu, Karan, Dipesh, Surender, and Sunny @ Rakesh were armed with pistols, while the remaining accused persons, including the petitioner, were carrying rods and knives. Upon entering through the gate, accused Sunil @ Kalu allegedly fired a shot in the air.
4. Thereafter, accused Sunil @ Kalu fired at the leg of Sonu @ Pehalwan. At that juncture, Bhola, Surender, Deepesh and others are stated to have instigated him to kill. It is further alleged, when Rajeev @ Bunty approached the accused Sunny @ Rakesh, the latter took a pistol from the hand of one of the assailants and fired at the neck of Rajeev @ Bunty. When Sonu @ Pehalwan attempted to get up, accused Sunil @ Kalu allegedly fired at his neck. Giriraj, who moved towards the accused persons, was initially assaulted with fists and kicks, and thereafter, accused Karan fired upon him, causing a gunshot injury to his hip. Subsequently, all the accused persons fled from the spot.
5. The injured persons were taken to the St. Stephen's Hospital, where Rajeev @ Bunty was declared brought dead, while Sonu @ Pehalwan and Giriraj were found to have sustained gunshot injuries. It is also alleged that complainant-Kamal had also sustained injuries during the course of the incident.
6. During the course of investigation, the crime scene was inspected and photographed by the crime team, and various exhibits were seized. Six empty shell KF 7.65 were recovered from the scene.
7. The post-mortem examination of the deceased Rajeev @ Bunty was conducted at the Mortuary, Subzi Mandi, Delhi, vide PM NO. 1137/14, wherein the cause of death was stated to be hemorrhage and shock due to laceration of the right lung consequent upon injury sustained by a projectile (bullet) of a firearm weapon, which according to the prosecution is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
8. During treatment, Sonu @ Pehalwan succumbed to his injuries and expired on 17.07.2014. His post-mortem was conducted vide PM No. 1325/14, and as per the post-mortem report, the cause of death was multiple organ failure due to septicaemia consequent upon gunshot injury as alleged to neck.
9. Accused Sunil @ Maya (the petitioner herein) was arrested under Section 41.1(B) Cr.P.C. by the Police of Police Station Bharat Nagar and was thereafter arrested in the present case on 14.07.2014.
10. The petitioner refused to participate in the Test Identification Parade proceedings, however, he was identified by the complainant Kamal @ Sonu and witness Raj Kumar @ Raju at Tis Hazari Courts on 06.10.2014. In their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., both Kamal @ Sonu and Raj Kumar @ Raju categorically stated that petitioner was among the assailants who had attacked Kamal and Giriraj with an iron rod.
11. Upon completion of investigation, the Charge-Sheet was filed before the learned Trial Court against the accused persons, including the petitioner. The petitioner was put on trial for the charges under Sections 302/307/120 B IPC and the case is at the stage of recording of prosecution evidence.
12. While seeking bail of the petitioner, learned counsel submits that the petitioner was arrested on 14.07.2014 and is presently lodged in Central Jail No. 8/9, Tihar, New Delhi. The petitioner has already undergone substantial incarceration, having remained in custody for a period of more than ten years.
13. He submits that out of 42 witnesses, only 37 prosecution witnesses have been examined till date. Furthermore, two of the coaccused, namely Surender and Dipesh, who were earlier absconding, have now been arrested. In view thereof, the prosecution witnesses are likely to be re-examined, which would cause further delay in the conclusion of the trial and it is not likely to conclude in the near future.
14. He submits that that the co-accused, Vikrant Sagar has already been admitted to regular bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.01.2024. The learned counsel contends that even on parity, the petitioner deserves be enlarged on regular bail.
15. While opposing the bail application, the learned APP for the State submits that that the petitioner had refused to join the TIP proceedings, however, he was subsequently identified by the material witnesses.
16. She submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender and was involved in five other criminal cases. Out of these, two cases pertaining to FIR No. 334/2013, registered under Sections 392, 394, and 34 of the IPC and FIR No. 31/2013, registered under Sections 323, 341, and 34 of the IPC, are still pending. However, in other three FIR cases, the petitioner has been acquitted in one case, in second case the matter was compounded, and in the third, the FIR was cancelled.
17. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State further submits that the jail conduct of the petitioner is unsatisfactory for having 13 punishments from 2018 till 2025.
18. The learned counsel for the complainant, Ms. Tanya Aggarwal, submits that the conduct and involvement of the petitioner in other cases shows a propensity towards committing crime and that too, heinous in nature and so, the petitioner does not deserve to be released on bail.
19. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, complainant as well as the learned APP for State and on perusal of the record it emerges that the assailant party, comprising of the petitioner and the co-accused persons, six in number, arrived at the spot armed with guns, iron rods and knives. During the brawl, co-accused Sunil @ Kalu fired a gunshot in the air.
20. Co-accused Sunny @ Rakesh fired at Rajeev @ Bunty, who sustained a gunshot injury to his right lung and subsequently succumbed to his injuries. Sonu @ Pehlwan also suffered a gunshot injury to his neck but died due to multiple organ failure caused by septicaemia resulting from the gunshot wound. Giriraj also sustained gunshot injuries to his hip.
21. The role ascribed to the petitioner is that he along with other coaccused persons assaulted the complainant- Kamal, and Giriraj with iron rods. However, the extent and nature of the injuries sustained by these two victims have not been specified by the respondents.
22. It is not in dispute that co-accused Vikrant was enlarged on bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.01.2024, after having undergone incarceration for a period of seven years at that time. The role ascribed to him is that he instigated the other coaccused persons to kill, and no specific overt act or injury has been attributed to him.
23. The learned APP for the State has submitted that apart from Vikrant one more co-accused has been granted regular bail, while two other accused persons are on interim bail.
24. Before the arrest of the co-accused persons, two had absconded, and out of 42 witnesses, the prosecution has recorded the evidence of 37 witnesses. Undoubtedly, with the arrest of the two previously absconding co-accused persons, the prosecution witnesses will have to be re-examined, which is likely to cause a delay in the conclusion of the trial.
25. Thus, there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in the foreseeable future, and the long continued detention of the petitioner would be unjustified in the present case, specifically when he is not alleged to have caused any gunshot injuries to the deceased or injured persons. The petitioner, along with co-accused Vikrant (who is already on bail), was carrying rods or knives when they reached the spot and the petitioner gave beatings to the two injured persons.
26. This Court notes that, as per the nominal roll, the conduct of the petitioner in jail has been ‘ Unsatisfactory’, with incidents of misconduct and possession of prohibited articles spreading over a period from 2018 to 2025. The nominal roll further reveals that the petitioner has been in custody since his arrest on 14.07.2014, thus, having been in custody period of 10 years and 10 months.
27. Insofar as the number of punishments awarded to the petitioner in jail is concerned, it cannot be ruled out that prolonged incarceration over an extended period may cause significant distress and mental health concerns to undertrial prisoners.
28. Therefore, keeping in view the long period of incarceration, now touching 11 years, the role ascribed to the petitioner as well as the fact that the trial may not conclude in near future, the petitioner is admitted to regular bail in pending trail in FIR No. 303/2014 dated 26.06.2014, under Sections 302, 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 25, 27, 25 (54) and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Subzi Mandi, Delhi on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with two sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/ CMM/ Duty Magistrate and further subject to the following conditions:- (i)The petitioner shall not leave the NCT of Delhi without prior permission of the learned Trial Court;
(ii) The petitioner shall report at P.S. Subzi Mandi once a week i.e. every Wednesday at 04:00 PM for marking his presence;
(iii) The petitioner shall intimate the learned Trial Court by way of an affidavit and to the Investigating Officer regarding any change of residential address;
(iv) The petitioner shall appear before the learned Trial Court as and when the matter is taken up for hearing;
(v) The petitioner is directed to give his mobile number to the
(vi) The petitioner shall not contact, nor visit, nor offer any inducement, threat or promise to any of the prosecution witnesses or other persons acquainted with the facts of the case;
(vii) The petitioner shall also not tamper with the evidence nor otherwise indulge in any act or omission that is unlawful or that would prejudice the proceedings in the pending trial.
29. It is made clear that no observations made above shall tantamount to be an expression on the merits of the petitioner’ s case and they have been made for the purpose of consideration of bail alone.
30. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent concerned for information and necessary compliance.
31. Accordingly, the present Bail Application along with pending application stands disposed of.
SHALINDER KAUR, J JULY 10, 2025/r/sk