BAIL APPLN./783/2025 of ANIL KUMAR Vs STATE OF NCT DELHI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+BAIL APPLN. 783/2025ANIL KUMAR

.....Petitioner

Through:Mr. Jai Singh Yadav, Advocate

versus

STATE OF NCT DELHI.....Respondent

Through:Mr. Laksh Khanna, APP for State forthe State with SI Sachin, HC Amit,PS Baba Haridas Nagarthe State with SI Sachin, HC Amit,PS Baba Haridas Nagar

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R R%03.04.2025

1.The present application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya NagarikSuraksha Sanhita, 2023[1](formerly Section 438 of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973[2]) seeks grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 196/2024under Sections 323, 324, 325, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860[3]and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959[4]registered at P.S. Baba HaridasNagar.

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

2.1The FIR was registered upon the complaint of one Mr. Sunil Gahlot(the Complainant) who alleged that his uncle – Mr. Samay Chand, alongwith his son Anil Kumar (the Applicant) and some other individuals

1 “BNSS”

2 “Cr.P.C.”

3 “IPC”

4 “Arms Act”

BAIL APPLN. 783/2025

Page 1 of 6

attacked the Complainant with sticks and rod, with the intention to killhim. He further alleged that the Applicant placed gun on his forehead,threatening to kill him and to occupy their ancestral land.

2.2The Complainant explained in his statement that his grandfather, Mr.Subhram, had three sons – Prem Chand (now deceased), Samay Chand, andKishan Chand. The Complainant is the son of Kishan Chand. The ancestralland in question measures six acres, with two acres purportedly earmarkedfor each of the three sons. According to the Complainant, tensions had beensimmering since May, 2024, when Samay Chand proposed developing theland into garden. This suggestion sparked series of disputes between himand Kishan Chand. On 20[th]May, 2024, Samay Chand allegedly initiatedillegal construction on the land without any partition or agreement.

2.3The incident in question is stated to have occurred on 30[th]May, 2024,at approximately 6:00 PM, when the Complainant was walking toward hisfarm.SamayChandallegedlyinterceptedhim,threatenedhislife.Thereafter, Samay Chand called the Applicant, who arrived within tenminutes accompanied by five other individuals, all armed with sticks andiron rods. The Complainant asserts that he was assaulted by the group afterbeing knocked to the ground. During the assault, the Applicant pulled out apistol and held it to the Complainant’s forehead, threatening to shoot him.

2.4The Complainant further states that person named Ajay, who hadaccompanied him, alerted both his family and the police upon witnessing theevents. Soon thereafter, the Complainant’s father and the police arrived,prompting the accused to flee. The Complainant was taken to the hospital

BAIL APPLN. 783/2025

where his Medico-Legal Case[5]was recorded, revealing grievous injury,including fractured left hand requiring surgical intervention. Based on hisstatement, an FIR was registered under Sections 323, 324, 506, and 34 ofIPC.

2.5Following the medical opinion categorising the injury as grievous,Sections 325 of the IPC and 27 of the Arms Act were added to the FIRduring the course of investigation.

2.6The police attempted to secure the Applicant’s cooperation during theinvestigation. Despite service of notice under Section 35(3) of BNSSrequiring him to join the investigation on 10[th]February, 2025, the Applicantdid not comply. He eventually appeared on 22[nd]February, 2025, but failedto cooperate and allegedly misled the investigating authorities.

2.7Another Notice dated 18[th]February, 2025 was served on theApplicant to join the investigation on 4[th]March, 2025, however theApplicant once again did not comply with the same. Since the Applicant isnot co-operating with the investigation, the anticipatory bail application isstrongly opposed. On an earlier occasion, the anticipatory bail application ofthe Applicant was dismissed by the Court of ASJ, Dwarka on 30[th]January,2025.

3.Counsel for the Applicant urges the following grounds for seekinganticipatory bail:

3.1The Applicant, who comes from respectable family and has deeproots in society, has been falsely implicated in the present case by theComplainant – who is his blood relative.

3.2The dispute between the parties is fundamentally civil in nature and

5 “MLC”

BAIL APPLN. 783/2025Page 3 of 6

has been deliberately dressed up as criminal case. In this regard, it must benoted that the Complainant’s father has also filed civil suit being CS SCJ1804/2024 seeking permanent and mandatory injunction against SamayChand, the father of the Applicant. Moreover, the Complainant’s father hasalso moved an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., which ispending adjudication before the Court of JMFC-09, South West District,Dwarka Courts, Delhi. Further, on 2[nd]December, 2024, upon observing thefather of the Complainant installing electric wires on land adjoining hisinherited plot, the Applicant’s father (Samay Chand), lodged complaintwith the SHO, P.S. Baba Haridas Nagar.

3.3The Applicant undertakes to join and co-operate in the ongoinginvestigation in the subject FIR and he is not flight risk.

4.Mr. Khanna, APP for the State, opposes the bail application on thegrounds that the Applicant has criminal antecedent. Furthermore, he arguesthat the offences in the present FIR are serious and the role of accused isevident from the statement of the Complainant. Moreover, as per the MLCreport, the injury caused to the Complainant was classified as grievous innature. Thus, in light of the facts of the case, custodial interrogation of theApplicant is required for the recovery of the alleged weapon used in thecommission of the offence, i.e., the gun allegedly pointed at theComplainant by the Applicant.

5.The Court has considered the submissions of the parties. On 21[st]February, 2025, taking note of Applicant’s willingness to join and cooperatein investigation, this Court had directed him to appear before the concernedInvestigating Officer and render full assistance in terms of the ongoinginvestigation. The Applicant has duly complied with these directions having

BAIL APPLN. 783/2025

Page 4 of 6

joined the investigation and cooperated with the police authorities. There isno allegation of non-compliance or obstruction on his part. Thus, in theprima facie opinion of this Court, the Applicant has demonstrated bona fideintent to co-operate in investigation.

6.It is well settled that while considering an application for anticipatorybail, the Court must assess whether the applicant is likely to abscond, tamperwith evidence, or influence witnesses. In the present case, the Applicant hasroots in the community, has remained accessible, and has demonstrated hisintent to cooperate with the investigation. Applying this principle to the factsat hand, this Court finds no cogent material to suggest that the custodialinterrogation of the Applicant is indispensable for the investigation.Accordingly, this Court is of the prima facie view that the continuedprotection of the Applicant, at this stage, is warranted.

7.Therefore, in light of the foregoing, the present application isallowed. In the event of his arrest, the Applicant is directed to be releasedon bail, on furnishing bail bond for sum of ₹25,000/- with one surety of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the concerned IO/SHO, on thefollowing conditions:

a.The Applicant shall join and cooperate with the investigation as andwhen directed by the IO;

b.The Applicant shall not leave the boundaries of the country withoutinforming the IO/ SHO concerned;

c.The Applicant shall not contact the witnesses or tamper with theevidence in any manner;

d.The Applicant shall give his mobile number to the concerned IO/SHOand shall keep his mobile phone switched on at all times;

BAIL APPLN. 783/2025

Page 5 of 6

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 influencethe outcome of the trial, if any and also should not be taken as an expressionof opinion on the merits of the case.

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

APRIL 3, 2025/ab

SANJEEV NARULA, J