Order 1

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 1
IA No. 01/2026 in SC No. 242/2026
State Vs. Satyajit; FIR No. 78/2026
IA No. 01/2026 dated 08.07.2026
in SC No. 242/2026
State Vs. Satyajit
FIR No. 78/2026
U/s 121(1)/221/132/109(1) BNS
& 3/181 MV Act
PS: Tilak Marg
14.07.2026
Present: Sh. Mukul Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Sh. Lokesh Kumar Garg, Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused.
IO SI Sukhbir Singh (NP).
A) BRIEF
By way of this order, I shall dispose of the application filed on behalf of
accused/applicant Satyajeet Kumar S/o Kashi Nath Singh Chaudhary, under
Section 483 BNSS, seeking grant of regular bail in the present FIR registered
at PS Tilak Marg for offences punishable under Sections
121(1)/221/132/109(1) BNS and Section 3/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
B) CASE OF PROSECUTION
1. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 28.05.2026 at about 5:00
PM, Ct. Lekhraj, while performing traffic regulation and challaning duty
along with ASI Jagjiwan and ASI Dilip at Point No. 23, Purana Quila Road
near Coast Guard Headquarters, New Delhi, noticed a grey Honda City
car bearing registration No. UP14DJ4607 coming from the side of Pragati
Maidan Tunnel towards India Gate. As the vehicle was fitted with a fancy
number plate and black film on the windscreen, the complainant signalled
the driver to stop the vehicle for checking.
2. The driver initially slowed down, but on the complainant approaching the
vehicle, the accused suddenly accelerated it and struck the complainant,
-- 1 of 7 --
2
IA No. 01/2026 in SC No. 242/2026
State Vs. Satyajit; FIR No. 78/2026
causing him to fall onto the bonnet of the vehicle. Thereafter, despite the
complainant being on the bonnet and repeatedly directing the accused to
stop, the accused continued driving the vehicle at high speed in a zig-zag
manner for approximately 1 km, with the apparent intention of throwing
the complainant off the moving vehicle.
3. The complainant remained hanging onto the bonnet throughout the said
stretch, thereby being exposed to grave risk of death or serious injury.
When the vehicle slowed down near Subramanyam Bharti Marg on
account of traffic congestion, the complainant attempted to stop the
accused; however, the accused reversed the vehicle, collided with other
vehicles in the process, and fled from the spot. The complainant was
medically examined at LHMC Hospital, and the present FIR came to be
registered. During investigation, CCTV footage of the incident was
obtained, the offending vehicle was recovered on 29.05.2026, Test
Identification Parade (TIP) of the accused was conducted successfully on
06.06.2026, and the charge-sheet has already been filed before the Court
on 09.06.2026.
C) SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED/APPLICANT
1. It is submitted by ld. Counsel for the accused/applicant that the accused
was earlier admitted to interim bail vide order dated 15.06.2026 passed by
the Vacation Judge, for the limited purpose of appearing in his
examinations, till 04:00 PM on 10.07.2026.
2. It is submitted that the accused availed the said liberty strictly for the
stated purpose, did not misuse the same, and duly surrendered before the
concerned Jail Superintendent on 10.07.2026 in compliance with the said
order. It is further submitted that the accused has, in total, remained in
judicial custody for about 18-20 days since the date of his arrest.
-- 2 of 7 --
3
IA No. 01/2026 in SC No. 242/2026
State Vs. Satyajit; FIR No. 78/2026
3. Ld. Counsel for the accused submits that the accused is a young student
of BBA First Year, Second Semester, at Galgotias University; that he is
about 20 years of age and has no previous criminal antecedents; that he is
not involved in any other criminal case; that nothing further remains to be
recovered from him; that investigation qua the accused is complete and he
is no longer required for custodial interrogation; and that he is ready to
abide by any terms and conditions that this Court may impose.
4. It is further submitted that the accused has already availed and duly
honoured the interim bail granted to him for examination purposes, and
has now surrendered as directed, which conduct itself demonstrates that
he is not a flight risk and would not misuse the liberty of regular bail.
D) SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF STATE
1. Per contra, ld. Addl. PP for the State has opposed the bail application. It is
submitted that the allegations against the accused are grave and serious in
nature; that the accused not only obstructed a public servant, namely Ct.
Lekhraj, in the discharge of his lawful duty, but also used criminal force
against him and thereafter drove the vehicle in a deliberate zig-zag manner
over a distance of approximately 1 km while the complainant was clinging
to the bonnet, with the object of dislodging him therefrom.
2. It is submitted that this conduct exposed the complainant to grave and
imminent risk of death or serious bodily injury, inasmuch as a fall from a
moving vehicle at speed, in traffic, could well have resulted in the
complainant being run over by oncoming vehicles. It is submitted that the
version of the complainant and other witnesses stands corroborated by the
CCTV footage examined during investigation, and that the identity of the
accused as the driver of the offending vehicle stands independently
established by the Test Identification Parade conducted on 06.06.2026.
-- 3 of 7 --
4
IA No. 01/2026 in SC No. 242/2026
State Vs. Satyajit; FIR No. 78/2026
3. It is further submitted that the accused is a permanent resident of District
Bokaro, Jharkhand, and there is every likelihood of his absconding; and
that there is a real apprehension that the accused, if enlarged on bail, may
influence, threaten, or win over the prosecution witnesses, more so since
the complainant, being a police official, is yet to be examined before the
Trial Court.
E) OBSERVATIONS
1. I have heard ld. Counsel for the accused, ld. Addl. PP for the State, and
have perused the record, including the reply filed by the Investigating
Officer and the case diary.
2. At the outset, it is not in dispute that the accused was arrested on
29.05.2026, was sent to judicial custody on 30.05.2026, and was thereafter
admitted to interim bail on 15.06.2026 for the limited purpose of
appearing in his examinations, till 10.07.2026.
3. It is also not in dispute that the offending vehicle has been recovered,
CCTV footage has been obtained and examined, TIP of the accused has
been successfully conducted, and the charge-sheet has already been filed
before this Court on 09.06.2026. To that extent, the material part of the
investigation qua the accused stands completed, and the accused is
admittedly no longer required for custodial interrogation. However,
completion of investigation and absence of requirement of custodial
interrogation, by themselves, are not the sole or determinative
considerations for grant of regular bail, particularly where the allegations
are of a grave nature and go beyond mere obstruction of a public servant.
4. What weighs with this Court is the nature of the act attributed to the
accused, as reflected in the CCTV footage placed on record and examined
by this Court, and as corroborated by the TIP conducted on
-- 4 of 7 --
5
IA No. 01/2026 in SC No. 242/2026
State Vs. Satyajit; FIR No. 78/2026
06.06.2026. The material on record, at this stage, prima facie discloses
that the accused, upon being signalled to stop by the complainant, a police
official on lawful traffic duty, deliberately accelerated his vehicle and
struck the complainant, causing him to fall upon the bonnet.
5. What is of graver concern is the conduct that followed: the accused did
not stop upon the complainant falling onto the bonnet, but continued to
drive the vehicle at high speed in a zig-zag manner for a distance of about
1 km, with the complainant clinging to the bonnet throughout. Such
conduct, on the face of the record, is not a momentary or reflexive act but
a sustained one, continuing over a considerable distance, and prima facie
suggestive of an intention to dislodge the complainant from the moving
vehicle. Had the complainant fallen off in the course of such zig-zag
driving, in the midst of moving traffic, the probability of his being run
over by another vehicle and sustaining fatal or grievous injury cannot be
ruled out.
6. It is well settled that for the purposes of an offence involving attempt to
endanger life, the relevant consideration is not merely the injury actually
caused, but the knowledge and intention with which the act was done, and
the likelihood of grave injury or death that the accused, in all probability,
had reason to know would follow from such an act. The absence of actual
serious injury to the complainant, in these facts, is a matter of fortuity
rather than a mitigating circumstance in favour of the accused.
7. It is no doubt correct that the accused is about 20 years of age, is a first-
time offender with no previous antecedents, and has, on his own showing,
honoured the interim bail granted to him without misusing the same.
These are factors that would ordinarily weigh in favour of an accused.
However, they have to be weighed against the gravity and specific nature
-- 5 of 7 --
6
IA No. 01/2026 in SC No. 242/2026
State Vs. Satyajit; FIR No. 78/2026
of the act attributed to him, which stands prima facie corroborated by
CCTV footage and by his identification in the TIP proceedings.
8. At this stage, the complainant, being the principal witness and the victim
of the incident, is yet to be examined before the Trial Court, and the
apprehension expressed by the State that the accused may seek to
influence, threaten, or win over the prosecution witnesses, particularly the
complainant, cannot be said to be baseless or an idle apprehension, having
regard to the seriousness of the incident and what was allegedly at stake
for the accused.
9. So far as the invocation of Section 109(1) BNS is concerned, the same is
a grave allegation touching upon an act endangering human life, and the
material placed before this Court, including the CCTV footage and the
TIP proceedings, prima facie lends support to the said allegation. Merely
because the investigation is complete and charge-sheet has been filed, it
does not follow that regular bail must be granted as a matter of course,
particularly when the material on record discloses a sustained and
deliberate act capable of endangering the life of a public servant
discharging his lawful duty, and when the principal witness is yet to
depose before the Trial Court.
F) FINAL ORDER
1. Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances, the gravity of the
allegations, the nature of the act attributed to the accused as reflected in
the CCTV footage, the corroboration thereof by the TIP proceedings, and
the fact that the complainant/victim is yet to be examined, this Court is of
the considered view that this is not a fit case for grant of regular bail to the
accused at this stage.
-- 6 of 7 --
7
IA No. 01/2026 in SC No. 242/2026
State Vs. Satyajit; FIR No. 78/2026
2. Accordingly, the application for grant of regular bail filed on behalf of
accused/applicant Satyajeet Kumar is dismissed.
3. It is, however, made clear that the observations made herein are only for
the purpose of deciding the present bail application and shall not be
construed as an expression on the merits of the case.
4. It shall be open to the accused to renew his prayer for regular bail in the
event of any material change in circumstances, including but not limited
to examination of the complainant/material witnesses.
5. The present application is disposed off accordingly.
6. Copy of this order be given dasti to Ld. Counsel for applicants/accused
person and in compliance of Sanjay Singh Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of
Delhi), Writ Petition Criminal no. 974/22, copy of this order be also sent
to the concerned Jail Superintendent to convey the order to the inmate.
(Saurabh Partap Singh Laler)
ASJ-05, New Delhi District
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi
14.07.2026
-- 7 of 7 --