BAIL APPLN./2592/2025 of DINESH Vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+BAIL APPLN. 2592/2025 & CRL.M.A. 20194/2025DINESHDINESH

.....Petitioner

Through:Mr. Akshay, Mr. Ankit Sharma andMr. Mukul Lakra, Advocates.Mr. Mukul Lakra, Advocates.

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHIThrough:Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP.

.....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULAO R R16.07.2025

1.The present bail application under Section 483 read with Section 528of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023[1](erstwhile Section 439read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[2]) seeksregular bail in FIR no. 1674/2014 dated 18[th]December, 2014, registered forthe offences under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860[3]aswell as Sections 25, 27, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959[4]at P.S. Narela,Delhi. Subsequently, chargesheet has also been filed qua the Applicantunder Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the ArmsAct and the trial proceedings are underway.2.Briefly, the case of the prosecution as per the reply to bail application

1 “BNSS”

2 “Cr.P.C.”

3 “IPC”

4 “Arms Act”

BAIL APPLN. 2592/2025

of the Applicant, filed by the Investigating Officer before the Trial Court, isas follows:

2.1On 17[th]December, 2014, PCR call, recorded vide DD No. 105B,was received at P.S. Narela, regarding an incident involving shooting of alady by three boys. The said DD was entrusted to SI Aadesh forinvestigation. When he reached the spot, he found lady named Premwatiw/o Late Ram Kumar lying injured on cot. She was immediately moved tohospital where she was declared “brought dead with alleged gunshot injury”vide MLC No. 4145/20.

2.2.Subsequently, the District Crime Team inspected the crime scene andthe statement of an eye-witness, the minor daughter of the deceased, namelyGeeta was recorded. In her statement, Geeta stated that on 17[th]December,2014, between 9:00 PM and 10:00 PM, while she was at home with hermother, the Applicant, Dinesh Mathur who is also her brother-in-law,entered the house accompanied by two associates. He then overpowered hermother, alleging that she had falsely implicated him in rape case.Thereafter, the assailants began hitting her mother with kicks and blows aswell as with the butt of pistol and fired gunshot at her mother. When shetried to save her mother, she was also beaten up by the accused persons.

2.3Geeta stated that the Applicant had committed rape on her on 2[nd]October, 2014 and in this regard, she had filed case against him in P.S.Kanjhawla. She disclosed that the Applicant was pressurising her mother tocompromise on the said case and take it back, however, when she refused,the Applicant, along with his associates, shot and killed her mother. Geetafurther stated that she can identify the associates of the Applicant, the othertwo accused persons, implicated in the case. On the basis of her statement,

BAIL APPLN. 2592/2025

the subject FIR was registered and investigation was taken up.

2.4During investigation, the site plan was prepared and exhibits such asblood, blood-stained clothes, lead piece, an empty shell and live cartridgewere recovered and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory[5]. The postmortem of the deceased was conducted wherein the doctor opined that thecause of death was due to crania cerebral damage consequent upon firearmammunition injury to the head, which is sufficient to cause death in theordinary course of nature.

2.5On 26[th]February, 2015, the Applicant and co-accused Jitender @Bantu were arrested in Sonepat by the Haryana Police in relation to anothercase - being FIR No. 27/2015 under Sections 186, 307, 353, 412, 420, 473and 34 of IPC as well as under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act at P.S.Mohana, Distt Sonepat, Haryana. During their arrest, the accused personsdisclosed as to their involvement in the present case. Further, two pistolswere recovered from the Applicant and one pistol, along with 5 live roundswas recovered from the co-accused Jitender @Bantu by the Haryana Police.Subsequently, on 26[th]March, 2015, the Applicant was formally arrested.

2.6The recovered exhibits were sent to FSL Madhuban for analysis, andthe results have come back wherein the cartridge recovered from the sceneof the crime has been matched with the recovered firearms. The chargesheetin the present case has been filed and the trial is ongoing, wherein multiplewitnesses have been examined.

3.Counsel for Petitioner raises the following grounds for seeking bail:

3.1The Applicant has been falsely implicated and had no role in thecommission of the alleged offence. The prosecution’s case hinges solely on

BAIL APPLN. 2592/2025

the statement of Geeta, the daughter of the deceased, recorded under Section161 of the Cr.P.C. However, Geeta passed away during the pendency of thetrial, before her examination-in-chief could be recorded. In the absence ofher deposition being tested on oath, the evidentiary value of her statement isrendered inadmissible for proving the offence. There is no other substantivematerial brought on record to connect the Applicant with the crime.Consequently, the very foundation of the prosecution’s case stands seriouslyeroded.

3.2The Applicant has remained in custody since 26[th]March, 2015, andhas, thus, undergone more than ten years of incarceration as an undertrial.Despite such prolonged custody, the trial has made negligible progress. Only13 witnesses have been examined thus far, with over 20 prosecutionwitnesses yet to be examined, which clearly reflects the slow pace of trial. Inthese circumstances, continued incarceration would constitute violation ofthe Applicant’s fundamental right to speedy trial under Article 21 of theConstitution of India. Prolonged pre-trial detention, in the face of suchdelay, defeats the very object of criminal justice and warrants theApplicant’s release on bail.

3.3Furthermore, the other co-accused persons, i.e., Rahul @ Baniya andJitender @ Buntu, whose are implicated in the present case on identicalfooting, have been granted bail by the Trial Court and therefore, theApplicant should be granted bail on the ground of parity.

3.4As regards the other pending criminal cases against the Applicant,reliance is placed on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Prabhakar

5 “FSL”

Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh[6]to urge that the pendency of other criminalcases against the accused cannot be the sole basis for rejection of bail and insuch cases, the Court must take holistic view of the facts andcircumstances of the case.

4.On the other hand, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State, stronglyopposes the present bail application on the following grounds:

4.1The Applicant has been implicated in grievous and serious offenceregarding the cold-blooded murder of the mother of minor, while theApplicant was forcing her to compromise on the rape case registered againsthim.

4.2While the prosecution’s primary witness, Geeta (the daughter of thedeceased), has since passed away, the State has sufficient material, collectedduring investigation, to sustain the charges against the Applicant. The case isnot dependent solely on her statement, and other credible evidence isavailable to establish his complicity.

4.3The trial is already underway and has observed the examination of asubstantial number of prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the Applicant’srelease at this stage may compromise the continuity and integrity of theproceedings.

4.4The Applicant is habitual offender, and stands implicated in as manyas 19 other cases, several involving grave offences inter-alia under Sections302, 304A, 307 and 376 of the IPC as well as provisions of the Arms Act.Enlarging such an individual on bail would pose serious threat to publicsafety and the orderly conduct of trial. There exists strong apprehensionthat the Applicant may abscond, tamper with evidence, or influence

6 (2020) 11 SCC 648

BAIL APPLN. 2592/2025

witnesses if released.

5.The Court has carefully considered the rival submissions. It is truethat the Applicant has remained in custody for over decade as anundertrial. This prolonged incarceration has been accorded due weight,particularly in light of the constitutional guarantee under Article 21 of fairand speedy trial. Nonetheless, this consideration cannot be viewed inisolation. The allegations in the present case pertain to particularly heinousand brutal offence, the deliberate and cold-blooded murder of woman,committed allegedly in the presence of her minor daughter, who was also theProsecutrix in an earlier case of sexual assault involving the Applicant. Thegravity and depravity of the accusation weigh heavily against the grant ofbail. It is trite law that at the stage of grant of bail, the Court must keep inmind several factors relating to the case, such as – whether there is anyprima facie reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed theoffence, the nature and gravity of the accusation, severity of potentialpunishment, risk of the accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail, thelikelihood of the offence being repeated, etc[7].

6.The statement of the deceased eye-witness, Geeta (recorded underSection 161 of the Cr.P.C.) specifically attributes to the Applicant the act offiring upon the victim and pressuring her to withdraw an earlier case lodgedagainst him. That earlier case, it is alleged, pertained to the Applicant havingcommitted rape on Geeta herself, who was then minor and is also thedaughter of the deceased. Though Geeta unfortunately passed away beforeher testimony could be recorded during trial, the prosecution contends thatthey have other material evidence to substantiate its case. In particular, the

BAIL APPLN. 2592/2025

State has pointed to the forensic analysis, which confirms that the firearmrecovered from the possession of the Applicant matches the cartridgerecovered from the crime scene. This forensic link, according to theprosecution,offersaprimafaciecorroborationoftheApplicant’sinvolvement in the incident. The absence of testimony from the sole eye-witness,nodoubt,imposesahigherburdenontheprosecution.Nevertheless, whether the remaining evidence, circumstantial and forensic –is sufficient to establish the guilt of the Applicant beyond reasonable doubt,is matter to be adjudicated upon full appreciation of evidence during trial.At the present stage, however, the material on record cannot be brushedaside as insufficient.

7.What weighs significantly with this Court is the Applicant’s priorinvolvement in as many as 19 other criminal cases, several of which pertainto grave and heinous offences under the Indian Penal Code, including thosepunishable under Sections 302, 304A, 307 and 376 of IPC and varioussections of the Arms Act. The list of such cases, as furnished by theInvestigating Officer and placed on record before the Trial Court, reveals aconsistent pattern of serious criminal conduct and sustained engagementwith the criminal justice system. The details are as follows:

7 Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr. (2010) 14 SCC 496

BAIL APPLN. 2592/2025Page 7 of 9

8.The Applicant’s profile, viewed in light of his past record,unmistakablypointstohabitualcriminality.Whiletheprolongedincarceration of the Applicant, spanning over decade, is undoubtedly amaterial consideration, it cannot be treated as determinative in isolation,especially when weighed against the larger concern of public safety and theadministration of justice. The serious nature of the offence, allegedlyinvolving the calculated killing of the mother of Prosecutrix, furthercompounds the apprehension that, if released on bail, the Applicant maymisuse the liberty to subvert the trial, influence witnesses, or evade dueprocess.

9.In the considered view of this Court, the overall facts and cumulativecircumstances of the present case do not justify the grant of bail to theApplicant. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed, along with any

BAIL APPLN. 2592/2025

Page 8 of 9

pending applications.

JULY 16, 2025d.negi

BAIL APPLN. 2592/2025

This is digitally signed order.

SANJEEV NARULA, J