BAIL APPLN./4665/2024 of MANTHAN PASWAN @ MONU Vs THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+BAIL APPLN. 4665/2024

MANTHAN PASWAN @ MONU.....Petitioner

Through:Mr. Sahil Malik, Mr. Aditya Jain, Mr.Abhishek, Mr. Kanav Gupta, Mr.Sahil Lakra, Mr. Nakul Khatri, Mr.Lalit Roma and Mr. Chetan Dabas,Advocates.Abhishek, Mr. Kanav Gupta, Mr.Sahil Lakra, Mr. Nakul Khatri, Mr.Lalit Roma and Mr. Chetan Dabas,Advocates.

versus

THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

.....Respondents

Through:Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP.Mr. Sanjay Pal. GP for UOI.Mr. Sanjay Pal. GP for UOI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULAO R R

30.01.2025

1.This is the first bail application for regular bail under Section 483 ofthe Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023[1]in respect of FIR No.0223/2024 under Sections 109(1), 221, 132, 121, 61(1)(a) and 3(5) of theBharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023[2], registered at P.S. I.P. Estate, Delhi.

2.Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is as follows:

2.1On the statement of Constable Ramdas (Complainant) of P.S. IPEstate, Delhi, the aforenoted FIR No. 0223/2024 was registered against fouraccused persons including the Applicant. The Complainant stated that on

1 “BNSS”2 “BNS”

14[th]July, 2024, after receiving DD No. 34, he left on his official bike forpicket duty. At around 10:30 PM, Sujeet, the Pradhan of Valmiki Basti,called the Complainant and informed him that group of individuals wereseen near the public toilet at Valmiki Basti Chowk, drinking alcohol andsmoking bidis.

2.2Upon reaching the location on his bike, the Complainant saw severalindividuals drinking alcohol and smoking bidis. He instructed them to stop,cautioning them that public consumption of alcohol is punishable offence.The group, however, responded with hostility, expressing their resentmentand vowing retaliation before dispersing from the area.

2.3The Complainant later identified the individuals as (i) Rohit, (ii)Manthan @ Monu (Applicant herein), (iii) Amjad, (iv) Ashish and (v)Virender Thapa @ Raju. All of these boys are residents of the ValmikiBasti, except for Virender Thapa @ Raju, who is resident of Kotla.

2.4.Shortly after the initial encounter, the accused persons conspired toattack the Complainant. As he was preparing to leave on his bike, accusedRohit struck him on the face and head with wooden stick with the intentionto kill him. Rohit repeatedly struck the Complainant’s face and head withthe stick, while all the other co-accused, including the Applicant, shoutedthat the Complainant should not be allowed to live. The force of the assaultcaused the Complainant to fall from his bike, losing consciousness.Bystanders at the scene immediately alerted the police, and the Complainantwas taken to hospital for medical treatment.

2.5.Subsequently, during the investigation, CCTV footage from the areawas recovered and analysed. The footage confirms involvement of all theaforementioned five accused persons. It captures Rohit brutally attacking

the Complainant with stick and thereafter, all the accused fleeing from thescene of crime. All the accused persons jointly and in pre-planned mannerintentionally conspired to kill the Complainant in retaliation for beingstopped from consuming alcohol in public place. Pursuant to this plan,they attacked him with stick before fleeing the scene.

2.6.On 15[th]July, 2024, accused persons – Manthan @ Monu (Applicantherein), Amjad, Ashish and Virender Thapa @ Raju were arrested and sentto Judicial Custody. Rohit evaded arrest and remained absconding despitemultiple raids at his residence. Eventually, after this Court dismissed hisanticipatory bail application, Rohit surrendered before the Court on 30[th]July, 2024. It is also relevant to note that the bail applications of two otherco-accused, Ashish and Virender Thapa @ Raju, were dismissed by thisCourt.

3.Rebutting the case of the prosecution, counsel for Applicant arguesthat the FIR does not attribute any specific role to the Applicant herein – i.e.,Manthan @ Monu. It is urged that the Applicant is young man of 25 years,who has been in custody since 15[th]July, 2024, following his arrest.Pertinently, while the Applicant does not dispute his presence at the scene,Counsel for the Applicant emphasizes that the principal act of assault wascommittedsolelybyco-accusedRohit,whoallegedlystrucktheComplainant with stick. The prosecution’s case against the Applicant restson the allegation that he incited Rohit to attack the Complainant. Counselfurther argues that although the prosecution contends that the Applicant wasintoxicated at the time of the incident, no medical evidence has been placedon record to support this claim. Moreover, while the Complainant allegedthat he was struck with stick (danda), the injury noted in the MLC is

classified as ‘simple in nature.’ Additionally, there has been no recovery ofany weapon at the instance of the Applicant. Since the investigation in thepresent case is complete and the chargesheet has already been filed, nopurpose will be served by keeping the Applicant in custody any longer.Lastly, counsel assures this Court that if released on bail, the Applicant willabide by all conditions imposed and undertakes not to tamper with evidenceor influence witnesses.

4.On the other hand, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State, stronglyopposes the present bail application. He points out that the CCTV footagerecovered during investigation, clearly captures the sequence of eventsdepicting accused Rohit brutally attacking the Complainant with stick. Thefootage also shows Rohit along with the other accused persons fleeing fromthe scene of crime. Mr. Kumar contends that the CCTV footage establishesnot only the assault but also the preceding events, wherein the Applicant canbe seen consuming alcohol alongside the other accused. He asserts that theApplicant acted in furtherance of common intention with Rohit, therebymaking him equally liable for the attack on police officer performing hisofficial duty. The victim in the present case is police officer who wasdischarginghisdutyinresponsetoacomplaintregardingpublicintoxication. Granting bail in such cases, Mr. Kumar submits, would havegrave implications on the morale of law enforcement officers, who put theirlives at risk daily to uphold law and order. Permitting individuals who haveconspired to attack police officer in such brazen and premeditatedmanner to be released on bail would not only undermine the authority of thepolice but also send disturbing signal to society.

5.The Court has considered the contentions of the parties. The Court has

also examined the material on record, including the MLC of theComplainant as well as the CCTV footage of the incident. The MLC recordsthe injury suffered by the Complainant as simple in nature. However, theCCTV footage, prima facie, depicts brutal assault on the ConstableRamdas, by an assailant wielding stick. The prosecution has specificallyidentified this assailant as co-accused Rohit, and not the Applicant. Whilethis Court does not, in any manner, condone acts of violence against lawenforcement officers, it is also mindful that the allegation against the presentApplicant is limited to his alleged common intention in furtherance of theassault. Whether the Applicant shared such common intention or played anactive role in abetting the attack is matter that must be tested during trial.Similarly, while the prosecution contends that the Applicant was intoxicatedat the time of the incident, no MLC has been placed on record to substantiatethis claim. In the absence of such material, this Court is not inclined to giveundue weight to the prosecution’s assertion regarding alcohol consumptionin public place.

6.The Supreme Court, in several judgments, has held that the bail is notto be treated as punitive or preventive measure but rather as means tosecure the presence of the accused at trial. The purpose of pre-trial detentionis not to inflict punishment before guilt is established[3]. As per the nominalroll, the Applicant has been in custody since 15[th]July, 2024 and hasundergone 6 months as an under-trial as of 21[st]January, 2025. With thechargesheet already filed, the continued incarceration of the Applicant,would serve no purpose.

3 See: Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40; Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau ofInvestigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51.Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51.

BAIL APPLN. 4665/2024

7.In light of the above, the Applicant is directed to be released on bailon furnishing personal bond for sum of ₹50,000/- with one surety of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty MetropolitanMagistrate, on the following conditions:

a.The Applicant shall fully cooperate in any further investigation in thematter, as and when directed by the concerned IO;

b.The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case ortamper with the evidence of the case, in any manner whatsoever;

c.The Applicant shall under no circumstance leave the country withoutthe permission of the learned Trial Court;

d.The Applicant shall appear before the Trial Court as and whendirected;

e.The Applicant shall provide the address where he would be residingafter his release and shall not change the address without informing theconcerned IO/ SHO;

f.The Applicant shall, upon his release, give his mobile number to theconcerned IO/SHO and shall keep his mobile phone switched on at all times.

g.The Applicant shall appear before the concerned IO on every Mondaybetween 11:00 AM and 11:30 AM and will not be kept waiting for longerthan one hour.

8.In the event of there being any FIR/DD entry/complaint lodgedagainst the Applicant; it would be open to the State to seek redressal byfiling an application seeking cancellation of bail.

9.It is clarified that any observations made in the present order are forthe purpose of deciding the present bail application and should not influence

the outcome of the trial and shall also not be taken as an expression ofopinion on the merits of the case.opinion on the merits of the case.

10.The bail application is allowed in the afore-mentioned terms.

11.A copy of the order be sent to the Jail Superintendent for information

and necessary compliance.

JANUARY 30, 2025

d.negi

SANJEEV NARULA, J