Interim Order 10

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: State Vs. Javed Malik @ Jaidev @ Sunny @ Pouva
CNR No.: DLCT01-010490-2025
SC No. 478/2025
FIR No. 99/2025
Under Section 221/132/109(1)/121 BNS & 25/27 Arms Act
PS : Crime Branch
27.10.2025
Present: Mr. Amit Dabas, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Mr. Vineet Jain, Ld. Counsel for the accused,
namely, Javed Malik @ Jaidev @ Sunny @ Pouva.
O R D E R
1. The present application has been moved on behalf of
applicant, namely, Javed Malik @ Jaidev @ Sunny @ Pouva
(
‘applicant/ accused’ for short), in terms of the provisions under
Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
(
hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), seeking regular bail.
2. Learned Counsel for the applicant vehemently
contended that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely
implicated in the present case by the police officials of concerned
Police Station. In this regard, Ld. Counsel further submitted that
the applicant has nothing to do with the alleged offence, with
which he has been charged with. As per Ld. Counsel, the
applicant was lifted from his house and thereafter, implicated in
the instant case and no such incident, as alleged by the
prosecution had ever taken place. Ld. Counsel further submitted
that nothing was recovered from the possession of the applicant
or at his instance and the recovery, if any, has been planted upon
the applicant by the police officials. It was further submitted that
the investigation has already concluded and charge-sheet has
already been filed and no useful purpose would be served in
keeping the applicant in continued detention, considering that the
trial is likely to take considerable time. Ld. Counsel further
contended that the applicant has been languishing in judicial
FIR No. 99/2025
Page No. 1/6
-- 1 of 6 --
custody since 27.04.2025, without there being any fault on his
part. Even otherwise, Ld. Counsel submitted that the applicant is
the sole bread earner of his family and continued incarceration of
the applicant has put his family under grave hardships. Lastly, it
was submitted by the Ld. Counsel that applicant is ready to abide
by the terms imposed by this Court while granting bail, including
cooperating with the investigating authorities for further
investigation, as and when summoned/ requisitioned.
3.
Per contra, learned Addl. PP for the State
vehemently opposed the present application on the ground that
the applicant was actively involved in the commission of offence
in the instant case, being grave in nature. Further, as per Ld.
Addl. PP for the State, the allegations levelled against the
applicant are quite serious in nature. Ld. Addl. PP for the State
further submitted that the matter is at initial stages and only
charge-sheet has been filed before the Court. Ld. Addl. PP for the
State further submitted that in case bail is granted, there are
chances of applicant inducing, threatening and/or coercing the
witnesses, besides damaging material evidence. Ld. Addl. PP for
the State further submitted that the applicant is an active BC of
PS Khayala with a history of more than 30 criminal cases of
serious turpitude and that there is a reasonable likelihood of
flight risk of the applicant, making the present application liable
to be rejected to the outset.
4. The arguments of Ld. Counsel for the applicant as
well as that of Ld. Addl. PP for the State have been heard as well
as case record(s), thoroughly perused.
5. The quandary that surrounds the determination of
bail is replete with multitudinous factors, involving establishment
of a balanced approach between the conflicting interests. While
on one hand, such an adjudgment involves safeguarding the right
FIR No. 99/2025
Page No. 2/6
-- 2 of 6 --
to liberty of an individual, while preventing harassment,
humiliation, and unjustified detention of the accused, on the other
hand, it entails ensuring free, fair and full investigation.
Undeniably, liberty of an individual is valuable right, however, it
is trite law1 that such a protection cannot be absolute and there
may be instances where the collective interest of the community
may predominate the right2 of personal liberty of an individual.
Ergo, it is quite understandable that while exercising the
discretion to grant or refuse bail the Court will have to take into
account various considerations3, such as;
“the nature and
seriousness of the offence; the circumstances in which the
offence was committed; the character of the evidence; the
circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; a reasonable
apprehension of witnesses being influenced and evidence being
tampered with; the larger interest of the public or the State; the
position and status of the accused with reference to the victim
and the witness; the likelihood of the accused fleeing from
justice; the likelihood of the accused repeating the offence; the
history of the case as well as the stage if investigation, etc…”
Further, strikingly, it is a settled law4 that where there are
sufficient reasons to have reasonable apprehension that the
accused would flee from justice and/or tamper with prosecution
evidence, such an accused can be refused bail. Apposite to
further note that though, the courts are required to give reasons at
the stage of determination of bail, however, a detailed
examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the
merits of the case is not required5 at such a stage. Further,
1
Masroor v. State of U.P., (2009) 14 SCC 286
2
Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan, (1987) 2 SCC 684
3
Anil Mahajan v. Commissioner of Customs, 2000 SCC OnLine Del 119; and Prasanta
Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496
4
Anil Mahajan v. Commissioner of Customs, 84 (2000) DLT 854
5
Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra, (2022) 9 SCC 321
FIR No. 99/2025
Page No. 3/6
-- 3 of 6 --
court(s) cannot go into the question of credibility and reliability
of the witnesses/evidence put up by the prosecution, which can
only be tested during the trial1. Apposite to note in this regard
that while considering an entreaty for bail, court(s) cannot be
oblivious to the impact of grant thereof on the witnesses or the
complainant. In fact, in this regard the superior courts2 have
persistently cautioned that the impact of grant on bail on the
witnesses, yet to be examined and/or victim is required to be duly
considered by court(s), at the stage of such determination. Even
otherwise, the superior courts3 have also avowed that the impact
of an offence on the society, equally needs consideration while
determining on an entreaty for bail.
6. Therefore, wary of the principles hereinunder noted,
this Court outrightly observes that the primary contention of the
Ld. Counsel for the applicant is that he has been wrongly roped
into the present proceedings. However, in this regard it is
outrightly asserted that a detailed scrutiny of the evidence or
evaluation of their truth/veracity cannot be undertaken at the
stage of bail, so as to prejudice either the prosecution’s or the
defence’s case. Suffice it is for the present purpose to note that
from a perusal of the documents placed on record, in particular,
from the statements of the witnesses, the applicant’s complicity
and active role in the commission of offence
prima facie stands
established, in so far as it is the case of the prosecution that on
26.04.2025, at around 08.25 p.m., on receipt of a secret
information, regarding the applicant, asserted to be a proclaimed
criminal, wanted in heinous cases, the applicant was endeavored
to be apprehended by the police officials. However, Upon being
so confronted, the applicant is asserted to have taken out a pistol
1
Satish Jaggi v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2007) 11 SCC 195
2
Sudha Singh v. State of U.P., (2021) 4 SCC 781
3
Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2016) 15 SCC 422.
FIR No. 99/2025
Page No. 4/6
-- 4 of 6 --
and fired at the police team with an intention to kill.
Correspondingly, it is asserted that though the police officials
narrowly escaped in the said scuffle, however, the applicant was
apprehended and from his possession, one pistol loaded with five
live cartridges and one empty cartridge was recovered from the
spot. Congruently, it is the case of the prosecution that the
applicant is a history sheeter of PS Khayala with around thirty
previous cases of murder, dacoity, robbery, snatching etc.
Pertinent to note that the arguments of Ld. Counsel that the
contention of the State that upon being warned the applicant took
out a weapon is not demonstrable from the CCTV footage on
record, in the considered opinion of this Court is a subject matter
of trial and cannot be delved into deeply at this stage.
7. Consequently, in conspectus of the above and
further keeping in view the nature and gravity of the allegations;
the fact of applicant is involved in a crime of heinous nature;
severity of the punishment which may be inflicted on conviction;
role and complicity of the applicant as well as the
prima facie
incriminating evidence brought on record against him; manner of
commission of offence; reasonable apprehension regarding the
applicant’s fleeing from justice, considering the rigorousness1 of
the punishment involved and the previous involvements of the
applicant; the proceedings in the instant case are still at a nascent
stages as charges are yet to be framed; as well as further
considering the impact of the offence on the society, this Court
does not deem it fit to grant bail to the applicant at this stage.
8. Accordingly, the present application under Section
483 of BNSS for regular bail
qua the applicant Javed Malik @
Jaidev @ Sunny @ Pouva is
dismissed.
1
Kuldeep v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4218 and Rahul Kumar v. State
(UT of J&K), 2023 SCC OnLine J&K 323
FIR No. 99/2025
Page No. 5/6
-- 5 of 6 --
9. It is clarified herein that the observations made in
the present order are only limited for the purpose of deciding the
present application of the applicant herein and would have no
bearing on the factual matrix of the present case.
10. A copy of the present order be given
dasti to the Ld.
Counsel for the applicant, namely, Javed Malik @ Jaidev @
Sunny @ Pouva. Further, a copy of this order be sent to the
concerned Jail Superintendent with the direction to hand over a
copy of order to the applicant.
Abhishek Goyal
ASJ-03, Central District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
27.10.2025
FIR No. 99/2025
Page No. 6/6
-- 6 of 6 --