BAIL APPLN./117/2025 of SAURABH RAJPUT Vs STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ANR.

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+BAIL APPLN. 117/2025SAURABH RAJPUT

.....Petitioner

Through:Mr. Faiz Imam, Advocate

versus

STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ANR......RespondentsThrough:Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the Statewith SI Amit Punia, SI Mukul Tyagi,PS Palam Village

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R R%21.04.2025

1.The present application filed under Section 483 of the BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023[1](formerly Section 439 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973[2]) seeks regular bail in proceedings arising fromFIR No. 0499/2024 registered under Sections 115(2)/126(2)/3(5) of theBharatiya Nyaya Sanhita[3], 2023 at P.S. Palam Village, District: South West,Delhi.

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

2.1.On 1[st]September, 2024, an FIR was registered based on complaintby the victim, Ritesh. He reported that earlier that morning, he had arrived atPalam Railway Station and proceeded to the nearby rickshaw stand to book

1 “BNSS”

2 “CrPC”

3 “BNS”

BAIL APPLN. 117/2025

cab for his NDA examination centre in Delhi. While at the rickshaw stand,he was suddenly surrounded by two to three individuals who, without anyprovocation, began arguing with him. The situation escalated quickly, andthe assailants proceeded to attack him with sticks (lathis), ignoring hisrepeated pleas to stop.

2.2Owing to the injuries sustained, the Complainant was admitted to theHospital where he underwent three surgeries. It is pertinent to mention thatthe nature of injuries sustained by the victim are grievous.

2.3During the course of investigation, CCTV footage of the incident wasprocured. On analysis of the same, the accused persons and the vehicle usedin the commission of offence were identified. Subsequently, co-accusedRavi was arrested. He disclosed involvement of the Applicant and other co-accused persons in this incident.

2.4Accordingly, efforts were made by the police to trace the Applicant.However, when these efforts remained unsuccessful, the Trial Court, byorder dated 20[th]November 2024, declared the Applicant proclaimedoffender under Section 84 of the BNSS.

2.5.Subsequently, the Applicant was formally arrested on 09[th]December,2024.

2.6.On 13[th]December, 2024, Test Identification Parade proceedings ofthe Applicant were conducted, wherein the victim correctly identified him.Thereafter, on 17[th]December, 2024, 1 day PC remand of the accused wasobtained. Further, at the instance of the Applicant, the weapon of offence i.e.lathi was also recovered from him.

2.7.The CDR report revealed that the Applicant was present at the crimescene and maintained regular contact with other co-accused persons.

BAIL APPLN. 117/2025

Moreover, the CCTV footage clearly shows the Applicant mercilesslybeating the victim with lathi thereby causing grievous injuries to him.

2.8.As regards the stage of investigation, the Chargesheet, in the presentcase stands filed.

3.Counsel for the Applicant urges the following grounds for seekingbail:

3.1The investigation now stands complete with the filing of thechargesheet, and the custody of the Applicant is longer required forinvestigative purposes. The Applicant has been in custody since 8[th]December, 2024 and no purpose would be served by continuing hisincarceration.

3.2The Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case by theprevious I.O., who was in cohorts with the main accused, Sanjay Kumar@Silvester Daniel and accordingly did not conduct the investigation in fairmanner. It is further emphasised that the previous I.O. is facing disciplinaryaction on the allegation of demanding bribe and has been suspended forservice misconduct in the present case.

3.3. The Applicant had no intention of evading the law. The court noticeswere served at an incorrect address, which led to the Applicant beingwrongly declared as proclaimed offender.

3.4.Furthermore, the present case does not warrant invocation of Section109 of the BNS, as the nature of the injuries sustained does not suggest theintention to cause the death of the Complainant.

4.Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State, strongly opposes the bailapplication. He contends that both the video recording and CCTV footageclearly show the Applicant assaulting the Complainant. Furthermore, the

BAIL APPLN. 117/2025

Complainant has correctly identified the Applicant. He submits that theinjuries sustained by the victim are of grievous nature and, in view of theoverall facts and circumstances, the invocation of Section 109 of the BNS isjustified. It is emphasised that the Applicant was seen mercilessly attackingthe victim with Lathi, indicating the seriousness of the offence, and thus,bail ought not to be granted. Additionally, Mr. Ahlawat points out that theApplicant has prior criminal antecedents i.e., FIR No. 330/2024 registeredunder Sections 115/117(2)/126/91(3)/191(2)/351(2)/61 of the BNS at P.S.:City Rewari, Haryana. Further, Mr. Ahlawat submits that the Applicant wasdeclaredaProclaimedOffenderandtherefore,thereisaseriousapprehension that if the Applicant is released on bail, he may abscond. Hefurther states that the contention of the Applicant that all co-accused havebeen granted bail is incorrect. Two of the co-accused, namely, Narender andJaiveer Shokeen, are still in custody.

5.The Court has duly considered the facts of the case as well as thesubmissions made by both parties. It is noticed that the Complainant hassince been discharged from the hospital. The injuries sustained by him wereon the arms and legs, comprising total of three injuries. It is observed thatone of the co-accused, Himanshu, who is also visible in the video footage ofthe incident, has already been granted bail by the Trial Court vide orderdated 1[st]February, 2025 in BM No. 110/2025. As regards the Applicant’sprior criminal antecedents [FIR No. 330/2024], it is pertinent to mention thathe has been granted bail in the said case.

6.It is well established through catena of judgments by the SupremeCourt that the object of granting bail is neither punitive nor preventive. Theprimary aim sought to be achieved by bail is to secure the attendance of the

BAIL APPLN. 117/2025

accused person at the trial.[4]The chargesheet stands filed. The Applicant hasbeen in custody since 08[th]December, 2024 and no purpose would be servedby continuing the incarceration of the Applicant.

7.Having regard to the above and the fact that the investigation is nowcomplete, the Court is inclined to allow the Applicant’s request.

8.The Applicant is, therefore, directed to be released on bail onfurnishing personal bond for sum of ₹25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty MM, on thefollowing conditions:

a.The Applicant shall cooperate in any further investigation as andwhen 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 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 report to the concerned PS on first friday of every

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

month;

9.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.

10.It is clarified that any observations made in the present order are forthe purpose of deciding the present bail application and should not influencethe outcome of the trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion onthe merits of the case.

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

APRIL 21, 2025/ab

SANJEEV NARULA, J