Order 35

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 27
IA 7-26 in SC 22-24 State Vs. Surender Singh
FIR No. 382/23
PS : Mukherjee Nagar
22.07.2026
One regular Stenographer is on leave today.
Matter is being taken up today on an application u/s 483 BNSS
moved on behalf of applicant/accused seeking regular bail.
Present : Sh. Vikas, Ld.Addl. PP for the State.
MS. Poornima Yadav, sister of deceased in person.
Sh. Chandrashekhar Yadav, Ld. Counsel for
complainant/mother of deceased.
Sh. Pardeep Khatri, Sh. Utkarsh, Sh. Amit Khatri and
Sh. Aaksash Verma, Ld. Counsels for accused.
1. This is an application u/s 483 BNSS moved on behalf of
the applicant/accused Surender Singh seeking regular bail.It is a
matter of record that earlier bail application of accused/applicant has
been dismissed vide a reasoned order dated 24.11.2025.
2. IO has filed reply. Same is taken on record.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused. Ld. Counsel for the
applicant/accused seeks bail for the applicant/accused on the
following grounds :- The applicant/accused is innocent and he has
been falsely implicated in the present case; (ii) Chargesheet has
already been filed; (iii) The applicant/accused is in JC for around
three years; (iv) there is no eye witness to the alleged incident and
entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstancial evidence;
(v) accused/applicant was granted interim bail for a period of one
month. However, he did not misuse the liberty granted to him and
surrendered well in time. Therefore, the accused/applicant is not at a
contd……
-- 1 of 4 --
-2-
IA 7-26 in SC 22-24 State Vs. Surender Singh
FIR No. 382/23
PS : Mukherjee Nagar
flight risk; (vi) all prosecution witnesses are talking of mere
suspicion and there is no incriminating evidence whatsoever against
the accused/applicant; (vii) majority of the witnesses are police
officials/FSL experts. Therefore, the applicant/accused is not in any
position to influence them; (viii) the accused/applicant has been
roped in the present case only on the basis of disclosure statement of
co-accused which has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law; (ix)
Both the remaining co-accused namely Ravin and Rajpal have
already been granted bail; (x) the only incriminating circumstance
alleged against the accused/applicant is recovery of dead body of
deceased at his instance. However, the said recovery itself is
doubtful. In any case, its evidentialy value is to be tested at the stage
of judgment and at this stage, the presumption of innocence is in
favour of the accused; (xi) As regards the alleged audio conversation
relied by the prosecution against the accused/applicant, FSL report
regarding the same is pending and accused/applicant cannot be kept
behind the bars for an indefinite period.
4. Ld. Counsel for accused has also relied upon Karan Verma
Vs. State of NCT of Delhi [Hon’ble High Court Bail Appln.
2702/2020 dated 27.07.2021].
5. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has strongly opposed the present
application and has prayed for its dismissal. Ld. Addl. PP for the
State has also pointed out that (i) interim bail was granted to the
contd……
-- 2 of 4 --
-3-
IA 7-26 in SC 22-24 State Vs. Surender Singh
FIR No. 382/23
PS : Mukherjee Nagar
accused/applicant on the stated ground that wife of the
accused/applicant was ill and needed treatment; however, the said
treatment was not obtained. Therefore, it is clear that even interim
bail was obtained by the accused/applicant by misleading the Court;
(ii) dead body of the deceased was recovered at the instance of the
accused after a lapse of two years; (iii) accused/applicant also has
previous criminal involvement. Therefore, he is not entitled to bail at
this stage.
6. Ld. Counsel for sister of the deceased has also opposed the
present bail application and has relied upon judgment titled State of
Karnataka Vs Sri Darshan Etc. [Hon’ble Supreme Court Criminal
Appeal Nos. 3528-3534 of 2025 decided on 14.08.2025].
7. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused, Ld.
Counsel for complainant/sister of deceased and Ld. Addl. PP for the
State and have perused the record. I have also given oral hearing to
the sister of the deceased.
8. The allegations against the applicant/accused, as per the
chargesheet, are that he was working in Delhi Police as a Constable
and the deceased Monika Yadav was also working in Delhi Police;
both of them were in relationship. However, since the
applicant/accused was already married, the deceased was not willing
to continue with relationship. Frustrated with her refusal, the
contd……
-4-
-- 3 of 4 --
IA 7-26 in SC 22-24 State Vs. Surender Singh
FIR No. 382/23
PS : Mukherjee Nagar
applicant/accused called her to a secluded place and threw her from a
bridge; as a result of fall, Monika became injured, but did not die
immediately. Thereafter in order to kill her, the applicant/accused
thrust her in water leading to her death.
9. The above allegations against applicant/accused are of
gravest kind i.e. murder. The applicant/accused is stated to be the
main culprit, so there is no parity with the co-accused who have been
granted bail by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. The matter is at the
stage of arguments on the point of charge and material public
witnesses are yet to be examined. Earlier bail application of
accused/applicant has been dismissed vide reasoned order dated
24.11.2025 and there is no change of circumstances since then. In the
above facts and circumstances and in view of nature and gravity of
offence, no ground is made out to grant bail to the applicant/accused,
at this stage. The present application is accordingly dismissed.
10. Copy of this order be given dasti to the Ld. Counsel for the
accused and to the IO and be also sent to Jail Superintendent
concerned for information.
11. The present application is disposed of in terms of the
above order.
12. Put up for purpose fixed on date already fixed.
(JAGMOHAN SINGH)
ASJ-03, North District
Rohini Courts, Delhi/22.07.2026
-- 4 of 4 --