Order 46

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 1
IA No. 03/2025
SC No. 162/2023
State Vs. Mohd. Ansar
FIR No. 271/2023
PS: Dayalpur
U/s: 498-A/304-B IPC
18.07.2025
ORDER ON APPLICATION GRANT OF BAIL FILED ON
BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT/ACCUSED MOHD. ANSAR
1. This order of mine shall dispose of an application for
grant of bail filed on behalf of the applicant/accused Mohd.
Ansar.
2. I have already heard the counsel for the applicant
/accused and Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for State.
3. Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused Mohd. Ansar
submitted that the applicant/accused is a permanent resident of
Delhi and belongs to respectable family and he has been falsely
implicated in the present case and submitted that in the present
case, chargesheet has already been filed and case is at the stage
of evidence of the prosecution and also submitted that the
applicant/accused was arrested by the police in the present case
on 25.03.2023 and since then, he is in judicial custody and he has
spent incarceration for about 2 years & 4 months. Even nothing
has been recovered from the applicant and in the absence of
recovery of any incriminating material, it is difficult to establish
the offense.
4. Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused further submitted
that earlier two bail applications of the present applicant/accused
were withdrawn without pressing the same, as the statement of
-- 1 of 6 --
2
the complainant had not been recorded till then and submitted
that now, the complainant and other material witnesses have been
examined and cross-examined and submitted that there is no eye-
witness to the alleged incident and no direct evidence on record
against the applicant/accused regarding his involvement or
harassment and also submitted that the FIR itself is lodged after
considerable delay which seems to be based on assumptions.
5. Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused further submitted
that the applicant/accused is having a son aged about 3-4 years
and after the arrest of the applicant/accused, there is no one to
look after the minor child, except the old aged ailing
grandparents and also submitted that prolonged incarceration
during the pendency of trial would amount to pre-trial
punishment to the applicant/accused, which is impermissible in
law and also submitted that the applicant/accused undertakes to
abide by all terms and conditions imposed by this Hon'ble court
while granting his bail and also submitted that the applicant
/accused is a permanent resident of Delhi, so there is no chance
of his absconding or tempering with prosecution evidence and
prayed for grant of bail to this applicant/accused.
6. Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused also referred
the judgments of Sanjay Chandra vs CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40 and
P. Chidambaram vs Directorate of Enforcement, (2020) 13 SCC
791.
7. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP for the State
vehemently opposed the present application and submitted that in
the case in hand, charges against the applicant/accused have been
framed u/s. 498-A/304-B IPC and submitted that there are
-- 2 of 6 --
3
serious allegations of demand of dowry and harassment of the
deceased by this applicant/accused and the offences are serious in
nature. The case is running at the stage of prosecution evidence
and many more material witnesses are yet to be examined and if
the applicant/accused is released on bail at this stage, he may flee
away. Possibility of hampering with the witnesses and tampering
with the evidence also cannot be ruled out, so, this applicant
/accused does not deserve the concession of bail, so, his bail
application may be dismissed.
8. I have given thoughtful consideration to the
submissions made by Ld. Counsel for this applicant/accused and
Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for State and perused the
record.
9. The perusal of the record shows that the accused is
facing trial for committing the offences u/s. 498-A/304-B IPC.
No doubt, allegations are serious in nature, but, they are yet to be
proved. The applicant/accused has already remained in custody
for about 2 years and 4 months.
10.. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case, Nadeem
Chaudhary Vs. State of NCT of Delhi (Bail Application No.
39/2022) has observed that:
“The object of Jail is to secure the appearance of the
accused persons during the trial. The object is neither
punitive nor preventive and the deprivation of liberty has
been considered as a punishment. The applicant cannot
be made to spend the entire period of trial in custody
specially when the trial is likely to take considerable
time. The presence of the accused can be secured at the
time of trial by putting appropriate conditions”.
11. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi relying upon the
-- 3 of 6 --
4
case, Deepak Yadav V. State of U.P., (2022) 8 SCC 559 has
observed that:
“Moreover, it is settled law that this Court at the stage of
granting bail to the applicant is only to look into the (i)
the nature and gravity of the offences/charges coupled
with the severity of punishment in case of conviction;
and (ii) if there is any chances of the accused absconding
once out of bail; and (iii) if there is a reasonable
apprehension of the accused influencing the witnesses or
tampering the records when released on bail; and (iv) the
past conduct and previous record of the accused as he
should neither be a threat to the society of which he is
going to be a part of once again nor there should be any
change of his repeating the same or indulging in any
other offence; and (v) whether there is any prima facie
or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had
committed the offence; and (vi) behaviour, means,
position and standing of the accused in the society”.
12. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in another case,
Raghav Thakur Vs. State (Bail Application No. 1397/2023) has
also observed that:
“The object of keeping a person in custody is to ensure
his availability to face the trial and to receive the
sentence that may be passed. Apart from the seriousness
of the offence, other factors also have to be borne in
mind while considering the bail application. Delay in
commencement and/or conclusion of trial is also to be
taken into account and the accused cannot be kept in
custody for indefinite period, if the trial is likely to take
long time”.
13. In the present case, the charges against the applicant/
accused have been framed u/s. 498-A/304-B IPC. The
prosecution has cited total 22 witnesses and till date, only 5
witnesses could be examined, after framing of charge on
29.11.2023, that too, through video conferencing and
examination of a witness through video conferencing mode takes
-- 4 of 6 --
5
more time, than in the Court room, which clearly shows that it
may take some time in completion of trial. Moreover, since all
the material witnesses are to be examined through video
conferencing, there is no possibility of hampering or tempering
with the witnesses.
14. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of
the present case and the fact that trial is not likely to be
concluded soon, as total 17 witnesses are yet to be examined in
the present case and the applicant/accused has spent considerable
period in judicial custody, as he is in jail since 25.03.2023, this
applicant/accused Mohd. Ansar is ordered to be released on bail
on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one
surety of like amount and also subject to the following
conditions:
(1). He will not come in contact with the
complainant or any of the witnesses of the
prosecution.
(2). He will not tamper with the evidence of the
prosecution.
(3). He will not indulge in any other criminal
activity of similar nature in future.
(4). He will not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to
dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court
or the IO.
(5). He will appear on each and every date of
hearing, without fail.
-- 5 of 6 --
6
15. In case, if he violates any of the above conditions,
the prosecution will be at liberty to file application for
cancellation of bail of this accused.
16. In the abovesaid terms, the application for grant of
bail filed on behalf of the applicant/accused Mohd. Ansar stands
allowed.
17. Dasti copies of this order be provided to the parties.
18. Attested copy of this order be sent to the
Superintendent of Central Jail concerned for supplying the same
to this applicant/accused.
(PUNEET PAHWA)
Special Judge (NDPS)/Addl. Sessions Judge
North East/KKD Courts, Delhi/18.07.2025
-- 6 of 6 --