Order 15

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF MS. SHEFALI BARNALA TANDON
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-06 : NEW DELHI DISTRICT,
PATIALA HOUSE COURT, NEW DELHI
IA No. 2/2026
State Vs. Ranjan Kumar Rai
FIR No. 78/2024
PS – Parliament Street
16.03.2026
This is an application filed on behalf of the applicant/accused
seeking waiver of the condition of furnishing the surety and enlarging him on
personal bond, pending adjudication.
Present: Ms. Manisha Singh, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Sh. Piyush Sachdev, Ld. LAC for accused/accused.
1. Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused submitted that the
applicant/accused is facing trial in the present matter and has been in judicial
custody since 07.07.2024; that the Court pleased to grant him regular bail
vide its order dated 06.06.2025 subject to furnishing of surety bond in the
sum of Rs.25,000/-; that the applicant/accused is an underprivileged person
and does not have any contact or person, who can give his surety of like
amount.
2. To substantiate his arguments, Ld. Counsel for the
applicant/accused has placed reliance upon case titled as
Moti Ram & Ors.
Vs. State of M.P. reported in AIR 1978 SC 1594, wherein it has been held
that :
“30. Even so, poor men-Indians in monetary terms
indigents young persons infirm individual and women are
weak categories and courts should be liberal in releasing
them on their own recognisances put whatever reasonable
condition you may.
State Vs. Ranjan Kumar Rai FIR No. 78/2024
PS – Parliament Street Page 1of 3
-- 1 of 3 --
31. It Shocks one conscience to ask a mason like the
petitioner to Furnish sureties for Rs. 100,000/- The magistrate
must be given the benefit of doubt for not fully appreciating
that our Constitution. enacted by 'We the People of India'' is
meant for the butcher , the baker and the candle - stick maker
- shall we add , the bonded labour and pavement dweller.
3. Ld. Addl. PP for the State opposed the present application and
argued that the applicant/accused is a Vegabond and there is every possibility
of his fleeing from justice, if enlarged on bail.
4. Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and
personal liberty, and bail ensures that an individual’s liberty is not arbitrarily
curtained without due process. The very purpose of bail is to ensure the
appearance of the accused during trial.
5. In the application, it is stated that the applicant/accused is
permanent resident of - “Vegabond, Bangla Sahib Gurudwara, New Delhi.”
and as per reply filed by the IO/SI Dharamveer as per which, Sh.Abhilash
Gupta, Caretaker of Rain Basera denied the identity or knowing about
applicant/accused and the applicant/accused has not been living there from
last 05 years. It is further stated in the reply that the said fact has also been
confirmed by the Beat Officer HC Manoj Kumar.
6. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in
Bail Application No. 1337/2024
titled as
Christian James Michel Vs. Directorate of Endorsement :
2025:DHC:4214 (Dated 22.05.2025), has held that :
“29. However, one must also not lose sight of the fact that the
condition of furnishing a surety is not merely a procedural
formality, but serves a critical function in securing the
presence of the accused during the course of trial. Its
ramifications extend beyond the mere possibility of
State Vs. Ranjan Kumar Rai FIR No. 78/2024
PS – Parliament Street Page 2of 3
-- 2 of 3 --
undergoing the sentence upon conviction. The presence of
the accused is essential for ensuring the effective conduct of
trial proceedings and if an accused was to abscond and
remain unavailable, the same may cause prejudice to the trial.
Therefore, while genuine inability to furnish surety can be
considered by a court, the court must also ensure that any
relaxation in this regard does not compromise the integrity or
continuity of the trial process.”
8. The applicant/accused is facing trial for the offence under
Section 307 IPC which entails the punishment of life imprisonment, if hurt is
caused. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the present
case and possibility of flight risk, this Court is not inclined to grant release of
applicant/accused on personal bond. Accordingly, the present application is
dimissed.
9. Application stands disposed of.
10. Copy of this order be given dasti, Ld. LAC for applicant/accused
as prayed for.
(Shefali Barnala Tandon)
ASJ-06 / New Delhi District
Patiala House Court/16.03.2026 (gr)
State Vs. Ranjan Kumar Rai FIR No. 78/2024
PS – Parliament Street Page 3of 3
-- 3 of 3 --