BAIL APPLN./1408/2025 of MOHD SHARIF @ MOHD SHARIF KHAN Vs THE STATE(GOVT., N.C.T OF DELHI)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+BAIL APPLN. 1408/2025

MOHD SHARIF @ MOHD SHARIF KHAN

.....Petitioner

Through:Ms. M.R. Chanchal, Advocate.

versus

THE STATE(GOVT., N.C.T OF DELHI).....Respondent

Through:Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for Statealong with SI Ajit and Insp. JeetSingh, PS Hari Nagar.along with SI Ajit and Insp. JeetSingh, PS Hari Nagar.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULAO R R%28.08.2025

1.The present application filed under Section 483 of the BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023[1](corresponding to Section 439 of the Codeof Criminal Procedure, 1973[2]) seeks regular bail in proceedings arising fromFIR No. 556/2020 dated 24[th]September, 2020, registered under Sections302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860[3]at P.S. Hari Nagar, Delhi. Aftercompletion of investigation, chargesheet was filed under Sections 302,120B and 34 of IPC.

Factual Matrix

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows

2.1.On 24[th]September, 2020, SI Vikas received information regarding the

1 “BNSS”2 “CrPC”2 “CrPC”

BAIL APPLN. 1408/2025

alleged murder of an Under-Trial Prisoner[4], Sikander @ Sunny Dogra,inside Jail No. 1, Tihar. Acting on the information, SI Vikas and his teamproceeded to the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Jail No. 1. Uponarrival, they were informed by the authorities that the deceased hadsustained multiple stab injuries. The attending doctor’s report recorded thatSikander was brought dead at 1:45 PM on the same day, with visible stabwounds.

2.2.Intimation was thereafter given to the Duty Metropolitan Magistrate,and the Crime Team inspected the scene of the incident. During inspection,bloodstains were observed along the path leading from the RO Plant towardsWard No. 4, and pool of blood was found at the RO Plant. blood-stainedtowel/gamchha and pair of black-and-red slippers were also recovered,which the Head Warden, Jai Prakash, later identified to be the belongings ofthe deceased.

2.3.In his detailed statement, the Head Warden disclosed that theApplicant, along with co-accused UTPs, Saddam, Shadab @ Dabdi, andSaffan Ali @ Aafan Ali, were involved in the stabbing of the deceased. Hefurther disclosed that earlier that morning, at around 8:30 AM, an altercationhad taken place between the deceased and two other UTPs, Rashid @ NoorJanhan and Sameer Sheikh @ Sonu, who are also charge-sheeted in thepresent FIR. Following that altercation, Rashid and Sameer were taken toDDU Hospital, and vigilance among jail staff was heightened. Later thesame afternoon, around 1:15 PM, the Head Warden noticed four accusedmoving towards the deceased in the Chakkar area of the jail premises.

3 “IPC”4 “UTP”

BAIL APPLN. 1408/2025

2.4.According to the Prosecution, Shadab and Saffan provoked the otheraccused by recalling the quarrel which occurred earlier that morning andopenly made threats to eliminate Sikander. Acting on this incitement, four ofthe accused chased and fatally stabbed him. When the jail staff intervened,the assailants allegedly inflicted superficial injuries upon themselves,ostensibly to create an impression that they too had been attacked andthereby mislead the authorities. Subsequently, Shadab and Saffan wereapprehended by the wardens, from whose possession blood-stained kniveswere recovered. The larger knife (seized from Shadab) and the smaller knife(seized from Saffan) were measured, photographed, sealed in plasticcontainers, and taken into police custody and subsequently, the FIRNo.556/2020 was registered.

2.5.During investigation, UTPs Saddam, Shadab @ Dabdi, Saffan Ali @Aafan Ali, and the present Applicant, who were formally arrested. Duringhis interrogation, Shadab confessed the attack was carried out oninstructions from Rashid and Sameer Sheikh, with whom he was aligned in agang. He further stated that knives had been improvised and concealed inadvance, and that on 24[th]September, 2020, he and Saffan stabbed thedeceased while Saddam and the Applicant restrained him. The other co-accusedSaddam,Saffan,andtheApplicantprovidedcorroboratingstatements. In response to notice under Section 91 of CrPC, the jailauthorities produced duty rosters, PMS records, punishment logs, and CDcontaining CCTV footage of the jail dispensary. The footage depicts thedeceased being brought on stretcher in an injured condition, but it does notcapture the actual scene of the incident.

2.6.Thereafter, Rashid @ Noor Janhan and Sameer Sheikh @ Sonu were

interrogated and arrested for their role in planning the alleged murder.During interrogation, they admitted that the assault was carried out toestablish their supremacy in jail. The post-mortem report confirmed that thecause of death was haemorrhagic shock due to multiple stab injuries to bothlungs, which were fresh, ante-mortem, and homicidal in nature.

2.7.The charge sheet stands filed before the Trial Court, and charges havebeen framed against Shadab, Saffan Ali, Saddam, and the present Applicantunder Sections 302, 120B, and 34 IPC, while Rashid and Sameer Sheikh arecharged under Sections 302, 109, and 120B IPC.Contentions of the Applicant

3.Counsel for the Applicant urges the following grounds seeking grantof regular bail:

3.1The Applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and hasbeen in judicial custody since 29[th]September, 2020. The investigation iscomplete, the charge sheet has been filed, and charges have already beenframed; the Applicant’s further incarceration is neither required nornecessary for the purpose of investigation and would only be tantamount topre-trial punishment.

3.2.The trial is progressing at slow pace. Out of the 36 witnesses citedby the prosecution, only 4 have been examined till date. In thesecircumstances, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the time frame forconclusion of the trial. The Applicant submits that his continued detentionamounts to violation of his fundamental right to speedy trial under Article21 of the Constitution.

3.3.The co-accused Rashid @ Noor Janhan and Sameer Sheikh @ Sonu,who are alleged to be conspirators and whose roles are also reflected in the

charge sheet, have already been granted bail vide orders dated 4[th]March,2024 and 22[nd]March, 2024, respectively. Therefore, on the principle ofparity, the Applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

3.4.Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dr.Vinod Bhandari v. State of M.P.[5], wherein it was held that in bailproceedings at the pre-conviction stage, there exists presumption ofinnocence, and the object of custody is limited to securing the presence ofthe accused at trial and ensuring that the sentence, if any, can be enforced.Such custody is not meant to be punitive or preventive in nature.

3.5.The Applicant has no prior convictions. He poses no flight risk andthere is no possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses,particularly since the majority of the witnesses in the present case are policeofficials.

Contentions of the State

4.On the other hand, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State, opposesthe present bail application and makes the following submissions:

4.1.The allegations against the Applicant pertain to the murder of fellowunder-trial prisoner within the precincts of jail, where the Applicanthimself was in judicial custody. The offence is, therefore, of grave andheinous nature, reflecting deliberate act executed in furtherance of aconspiracy.Consideringthegravityofcircumstances,prolongedincarceration cannot, by itself, constitute ground for enlargement on bail.4.2.The Applicant is not first-time offender but habitual criminal,having previously been implicated in several other cases, including thoseunder the Indian Penal Code (such as robbery etc.) and the Arms Act. In the

present case, his role cannot be characterised as peripheral; the prosecutionspecifically attributes to him the act of restraining the deceased, therebyenabling his co-accused to inflict the fatal injuries. Having regard to hisantecedents and the seriousness of the allegations, it is contended that thereexists real and credible apprehension that, if released on bail, the Applicantmay attempt to influence or intimidate witnesses, thereby impeding the fairconduct of the trial.

Analysis

5.It is well settled principle in law that while considering anapplication of bail, the Court must keep in mind several factors relating tothe case, such as – whether there is any prima facie reasonable ground tobelieve that the accused has committed the offence, the nature and gravity ofthe accusation, the severity of the potential punishment, the risk of theaccused absconding or fleeing if released on bail, the likelihood of theoffence being repeated, etc.[6]

6.Indeed, the allegations against the Applicant are of grave andserious nature, which indicate premeditated act of murder, committedwithin the confines of jail, where the Applicant was himself lodged as anunder-trial prisoner. The material collected during investigation, includingthe contemporaneous statement of the Head Warden, recoveries of blood-stainedweaponsfromtheco-accused,andsuportingcircumstantialevidence, prima facie point towards the Applicant’s active participation inthe commission of the alleged offence.

7.The fact that investigation is complete and charges have been framed

5 Crl. Appl. No. 220/2015.

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

BAIL APPLN. 1408/2025

does not ipso facto entitle the Applicant to bail. In matters involving graveand heinous offences, if the material on record discloses prima facieinvolvement, bail cannot be granted merely for the asking. The Court isrequired to balance the liberty of the accused against the collective interestof society and the integrity of the trial process. The Supreme Court inKalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan[7]underscored the need for ajudicious exercise of discretion in bail matters and held that while detailedevaluation of evidence is not warranted at this stage, orders granting bailmust disclose reasons indicating why such relief is justified, particularly incases of serious offences. An order lacking such reasoning would be vitiatedfor non-application of mind. The relevant extract of the decision is as under:

“11.The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled.The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in judiciousmanner and not as matter of course. Though at the stage ofgranting bail detailed examination of evidence and elaboratedocumentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken,there is need to indicate in such orders reasonsfor prima facieconcluding why bail was being granted particularly where theaccused is charged of having committed serious offence. Any orderdevoid of such reasons would suffer from nonapplication of mind…”The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in judiciousmanner and not as matter of course. Though at the stage ofgranting bail detailed examination of evidence and elaboratedocumentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken,there is need to indicate in such orders reasonsfor prima facieconcluding why bail was being granted particularly where theaccused is charged of having committed serious offence. Any orderdevoid of such reasons would suffer from nonapplication of mind…”

[emphasis supplied]

8.Similarly, in Brij Nandan Jaiswal v. Munna[8], the Supreme Courtcautioned that bail, especially in cases of murder, cannot be granted in amechanical manner. The Court reiterated that some reasons justifying thegrant are indispensable. Thus, in the present case, where the allegationsdisclose proximate and specific role attributed to the Applicant – namely,that of restraining the deceased during the fatal assault – the plea of false

7 (2004) 7 SCC 528.8 (2009) 1 SCC 678.

BAIL APPLN. 1408/2025

implication is untenable at this stage. The contention that only four out ofthirty-six witnesses have been examined is also of limited weight. Whiledelay in trial is relevant consideration under Article 21 of the Constitution,delay by itself cannot justify release where the charges are of exceptionalgravity.

9.As regards the reliance placed on the principles of presumption ofinnocence and the limited object of custody at the pre-trial stage, there canindeed be no quarrel with these settled propositions. However, it mustequally be borne in mind that bail is not to be granted as matter of course;it is discretionary relief that calls for judicious balancing of competingconsiderations. The presumption of innocence, though fundamental, cannotovershadow other relevant factors, such as the gravity of the charge, thespecific role attributed to the accused, his antecedents, and the potentialimpact of release on the fairness of the trial. The Supreme Court in therecent case of Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar alias Deepu alias Deepak

and Anr.[9], observed as follows:

“11. The grant of bail is discretionary relief which necessarilymeans that such discretion would have to be exercised in judiciousmanner and not as matter of course. The grant of bail is dependentupon contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the Court andmay vary from case to case. There cannot be any exhaustiveparameters set out for considering the application for grant of bail.However, it can be noted that:

11.1.While granting bail the court has to keep in mind factors suchas the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment, if theaccusations entail conviction and the nature of evidence in supportof the accusations.

11.2.Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tamperedwith or the apprehension of there being threat for the complainantshould also weigh with the Court in the matter of grant of bail.

9 2023 INSC 761.

11.3.While it is not accepted to have the entire evidence establishingthe guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but there ought tobe always prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of thecharge.

11.4. Frivolity of prosecution should always be considered and it isonly the clement of genuineness that shall have to be considered in thematter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as tothe genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, theaccused is entitled to have an order of bail.”

[Emphasis Supplied]

10.The reliance on parity with co-accused Rashid @ Noor Janhan andSameer Sheikh @ Sonu is also misplaced. It is trite that the principle ofparity cannot be applied mechanically where the nature and degree ofparticipation differ materially. Those co-accused are alleged conspirators,whose role was confined to instigation and planning. In contrast, theApplicant is attributed direct physical involvement during the incident,specifically restraining the deceased, while fatal blows were inflicted.

11.The submission that the Applicant has no prior conviction and posesno flight risk is equally unpersuasive. The State has produced PreviousConviction/Involvement Report reflecting that the Applicant is habitualoffender involved in several other cases under the IPC and the Arms Act.Even in the absence of conviction, antecedents remain relevant factor inbail jurisprudence. Moreover, the Nominal Roll as on 21[st]May, 2025,records the Applicant’s overall jail conduct as unsatisfactory, with repeatedincidents of misbehaviour with prison staff. This lends further weight to theapprehension that his release may prejudice the fair conduct of the trial.

12.Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, theCourt finds no merits in the present application. The application isaccordingly dismissed along with any pending application(s).

13.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.

AUGUST 28, 2025/MK

SANJEEV NARULA, J

BAIL APPLN. 1408/2025