Order 16

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SH GURVINDER PAL SINGH,
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
NORTH WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI, DELHI
CNR No. DLNW01-009110-2024
SC No. 764-2024
STATE Vs. DARSHAN SINGH & ANR.
FIR No. 282/2024
P.S Kanjhawala
Under Sections 341/302/34 IPC
ORDER ON SECOND BAIL APPLICATION
OF ACCUSED PRADEEP SINGH DESHWAL
10.09.2025
I have heard Sh. R.S. Malik, Ld. Counsel for applicant/
accused Pradeep Singh Deshwal; Sh. G.S. Guraya, Ld. Chief
Public Prosecutor for State assisted by Sh. Rajesh Baweja, Ld.
Counsel for complainant Pardeep and have perused the record
including the bail application and replies and all other material on
record.
Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused Pradeep Singh
Deshwal prays for enlarging 37 years old applicant/accused
Pradeep Singh on bail on the following premise. Complainant has
not attributed any specific role to applicant/accused Pradeep
Singh Deshwal in his complaint and applicant/accused Pradeep
Singh Deshwal has been languishing in judicial custody for more
than one year and two months. As per case of prosecution,
injuries suffered by deceased has been attributed to co-accused
Darshan Singh, who is already in judicial custody in the present
SC No. 764-2024 STATE Vs. DARSHAN SINGH & ANR. FIR No. 282/2024 P.S Kanjhawala Page 1 of 14
-- 1 of 14 --
case. No active involvement/participation in the incident has
been attributed to applicant/accused Pradeep Singh Deshwal. No
role of exhortation has been attributed to applicant/accused
Pradeep Singh Deshwal by complainant in the present FIR. Even
applicant/accused Pradeep Singh Deshwal is not named in the
present FIR. Alleged CCTV footage of incident was seized by
Investigating Agency, which demonstrates that applicant/accused
Pradeep Singh Deshwal was not at all present at the place of
incident at the time of incident. Allegations against
applicant/accused Pradeep Singh Deshwal are false, fabricated
and afterthought intended solely to implicate the applicant/
accused Pradeep Singh Deshwal in the present case. Aforesaid
fact is further established by FSL result of CCTV footage, which
clearly states that,
“The facial image recognition could not be
carried out due to insufficient image data.”. It establishes the fact
that applicant/accused Pradeep Singh Deshwal was not present
at the spot at the time of alleged incident and case of prosecution
is an afterthought and a concocted story. At the time of incident,
applicant/accused Pradeep Singh Deshwal was working in his
fields, located approximately 1-2 kilometers away from the place
of incident and he only arrived at the spot after receiving a call,
informing him that his brother Darshan was involved in an
altercation with deceased and had sustained injuries. The first call
pertaining to said incident was made by applicant/accused
Pradeep Singh Deshwal but no action was taken till date on his
information by the police officials. After completion of
SC No. 764-2024 STATE Vs. DARSHAN SINGH & ANR. FIR No. 282/2024 P.S Kanjhawala Page 2 of 14
-- 2 of 14 --
investigation charge-sheet has been filed. Applicant/accused
Pradeep Singh Deshwal is no more required in judicial custody.
No further purpose will be served for keeping applicant/accused
Pradeep Singh Deshwal in judicial custody in company of
hardened criminals, which will be injurious for his health. No
weapon of offence was recovered from applicant/accused
Pradeep Singh Deshwal. The trial will take years to conclude. It
is not advisable to keep applicant/accused Pradeep Singh
Deshwal in judicial custody for an indefinite period. Applicant/
accused Pradeep Singh Deshwal is an innocent person and has
nothing to do with the allegations made in the FIR.
Applicant/accused Pradeep Singh Deshwal has been falsely
implicated in this case for oblique motive and as pressure tactics
only. There is no incriminating evidence showing applicant/
accused Pradeep Singh Deshwal with the crime in question.
Investigating Agency has implicated applicant/accused Pradeep
Singh Deshwal by attributing his presence at the place of incident
to construct their case, without any cogent proof of his
involvement. Relying upon the cases (i)
Yad Ram & Ors. Vs
State, 1992 JCC 451; (ii)
Sonu @ Deela vs The State (NCT of
Delhi), 2009 (4) JCC 2628 and (iii)
Siddharam Satlingappa
Mhetre vs State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2011) 1 SCC 694; Ld.
Counsel for applicant/accused Pradeep Singh Deshwal prayed for
enlarging applicant/accused Pradeep Singh Deshwal on regular
bail.
Ld. Chief Public Prosecutor for State with the
SC No. 764-2024 STATE Vs. DARSHAN SINGH & ANR. FIR No. 282/2024 P.S Kanjhawala Page 3 of 14
-- 3 of 14 --
assistance of Sh. Rajesh Baweja, Ld. Counsel for complainant
Pardeep have vehementally opposed the bail plea of
applicant/accused Pradeep Singh Deshwal on the following
premise. 38 years old deceased Sandeep Dabas was running a
Gym in the name of X-Fit at Rani Khera. On 08/06/2024 at about
8.30 pm, Sandeep Dabas was returning home on his Thar vehicle
no. DL-10-CV-7487. At Shani Bazar there was traffic congestion.
Accused Darshan @ Somu, resident of Rani Khera, was trying to
regulate the traffic in front of his own home. Some hot talks took
place between deceased Sandeep Dabas and Darshan @ Somu.
After sometime deceased Sandeep Dabas moved towards his
home in his car. After few minutes while deceased Sandeep
Dabas was moving in his car ahead; he was chased by Darshan
@ Somu and applicant/accused Pradeep Singh Deshwal. From
the driver side accused Darshan @ Somu quarreled with Sandeep
Dabas. Applicant/accused Pradeep Singh Deshwal had
apprehended Sandeep. Accused Darshan @ Somu picked up iron
stand (LED light) affixed in the shop in the side of Sham Bazar
and hit on the head of Sandeep. Blood came out from the head of
Sandeep Dabas and he fell down on the road. Sandeep Dabas was
picked up from the road and lifted and placed in his own car.
Victim Sandeep Dabas reached his home in his car and there
outside he became unconscious. Complainant Pardeep, brother
of Sandeep Dabas with the help of neighbors broke the driver
side window of the car and took victim Sandeep Dabas out from
the car. Complainant Pardeep took the victim Sandeep Dabas to
SC No. 764-2024 STATE Vs. DARSHAN SINGH & ANR. FIR No. 282/2024 P.S Kanjhawala Page 4 of 14
-- 4 of 14 --
Shri Agrasen International Hospital where he was examined vide
MLC No. 2027/2024 and the Doctor declared Sandeep Dabas as
brought dead. Body of deceased was preserved in SGM Hospital
mortuary for postmortem examination. Complainant Pardeep,
elder brother of deceased Sandeep Dabas stated that deceased
brother had informed him on the way to hospital that Darshan,
son of Dharamvir and his brother killed him and that Darshan
had hit the electric stand on his head. Postmortem on the body of
deceased Sandeep Dabas was conducted in SGM Hospital
mortuary and Autopsy Surgeon opined the cause of death of
deceased as craniocerebral damage as a result of blunt
force/object impact; wherein all injuries were antemortem in
nature. Both accused persons Darshan Singh and Pradeep Singh
Deshwal were arrested on 09/06/2024 and since then they are
under detention. Accused Darshan Singh had also received
injuries in the incident and was admitted in SGM Hospital vide
MLC No. 10298/2024. The weapon of offence i.e., iron stand of
battery LED light used by accused Darshan Singh in the murder
of deceased Sandeep Dabas was recovered at his instance. Blood
stained clothes worn by applicant/accused Pradeep Singh
Deshwal at the time of incident were also seized. Location of
mobile phone of applicant/accused Pradeep Singh Deshwal was
found near the incident. Four examined prosecution witnesses
have supported the case of prosecution. Remaining prosecution
witnesses including eye witnesses are yet to be examined. Ld.
Counsel for complainant also highlighted that the eye witness
SC No. 764-2024 STATE Vs. DARSHAN SINGH & ANR. FIR No. 282/2024 P.S Kanjhawala Page 5 of 14
-- 5 of 14 --
account is there in the statement of Mohit Deshwal recorded on
12/07/2024 by officers of Investigating Agency. Ld. Counsel for
complainant also pointed out towards the statements of
prosecution witnesses namely Kuldeep, Harender and Anil @
Sonu recorded in month of June of year 2024; to be supporting
the case of prosecution. It has been prayed that since offence is
grave and serious in nature and there is every
likelihood/possibility of applicant/accused Pradeep Singh
Deshwal influencing the witnesses; bail plea of applicant/accused
Pradeep Singh Deshwal be dismissed. Ld. Counsel for
complainant also relied upon the cases i.e., (i)
Rohit Pal vs The
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), Bail Application no. 2633/2021,
decided on 06/10/2021 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajnish Batnagar;
(ii)
Ashok Dhankad vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr., 2025 INSC
974; (iii)
Satish Jaggi vs State of Chattisgarh & Ors., Appeal
(Crl.) 651 of 2007, decided on 30/04/2007 by Hon’ble Supreme
Court.
Autopsy Surgeon observed on 09/06/2024 in the
Postmortem report that there were following two injuries in the
external examination of body of deceased Sandeep Dabas:-
“1. Lacerated wound, 9 x 2 cm x brain matter deep on left frontal
region.
2. Multiple reddish scratch abrasions varying in size from 0.3 x 0.1
cm to 0.5 x 0.2 cm on right elbow, right hand and lower back.”
Also was observed regarding head of deceased
Sandeep Dabas on examination that
“(i) Scalp : Subscalp
SC No. 764-2024 STATE Vs. DARSHAN SINGH & ANR. FIR No. 282/2024 P.S Kanjhawala Page 6 of 14
-- 6 of 14 --
bruising in left frontoparietal region; (ii) Skull : fracture of left
frontal bones; (iii) Brain : Diffuse thin film of subdural
hemorrhage over both cerebral hemispheres. Brain matter
congested and oedematous.”
Autopsy Surgeon opined that cause of death of
deceased Sandeep Dabas is craniocerebral damages as a result of
blunt force/object impact; whereas all injuries were antemortem
in nature.
Ld. Defence Counsel in the course of his arguments
submitted that Autopsy Surgeon in his opinion did not say that
the injury/injuries in question were sufficient to cause death;
consequently the present case is a
prima facie case for offence
punishable under Section 304 of IPC.
My Ld. Predecessor had framed charge on 10/12/2024
against accused persons for offences under Sections (i) 341/34
IPC and (ii) 302/34 IPC. The grievance, if any, of the defence for
framing of charge under Section 302/34 IPC could be got
addressed by taking recourse to appropriate remedy permissible
in law.
MLC of accused Darshan Singh of date 09/06/2024
placed on record
inter alia finds mention of laceration over left
frontal region of head (1 x 0.5 x 1 cm) besides reference of said
Darshan Singh to higher Centre for Neoro Surgery opinion.
Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused had relied upon the
case of
Yad Ram & Ors. Vs State (supra) , submitting that therein
was no explanation given by the complainant or other witnesses
SC No. 764-2024 STATE Vs. DARSHAN SINGH & ANR. FIR No. 282/2024 P.S Kanjhawala Page 7 of 14
-- 7 of 14 --
as to how injuries were sustained by the two accused and when
incident suddenly took place, it was held fit case for bail. In said
case, it was also observed by the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
that contention was also that the deceased died not because of the
injuries but due to shock as a result of left coronary artery
conclusion. It is not so in the present case in hand.
In the case of
Sonu @ Deela vs The State (NCT of
Delhi) (supra), the observation was that
prima facie it appeared
that the only allegation against the petitioner/applicant was that
he was present at the spot at the time of incident, whereas there
was no other allegation pointed out against applicant/
petitioner/accused besides also there being no recovery of any
kind having been effected at the instance of applicant and the
case was at the stage of consideration for framing of charge after
investigation was complete. Therein was the averment that there
was no avert act or role for the commission of offence of murder
assigned to the applicant/accused.
Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused also had drawn my
attention to following para no. 112 of the case of
Siddharam
Satlingappa Mhetre vs State of Maharashtra & Ors. (supra):-
“112. The following factors and parameters can be taken into
consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail:
(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role
of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest
is made;
(ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to
whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment
on conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence;
(iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;
(iv) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat
SC No. 764-2024 STATE Vs. DARSHAN SINGH & ANR. FIR No. 282/2024 P.S Kanjhawala Page 8 of 14
-- 8 of 14 --
similar
	or
	other
	offences;
(v) Where the accusations have been made only with the
object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting
him or her;
(vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases
of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people;
(vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material
against the accused very carefully. The court must also
clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case.
The cases in which accused is implicated with the help of
Sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 the court
should consider with even greater care and caution because
overimplication in the cases is a matter of common
knowledge and concern;
(viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory
bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors namely,
no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full
investigation and there should be prevention of harassment,
humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused;
(ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of
tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the
complainant;
(x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and
it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be
considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of
there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the
prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is
entitled to an order of bail.”
Ld. Counsel for complainant had relied upon the case
of
Rohit Pal vs The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (supra),
wherein the cause of death in said case was head injury produced
by heavy blunt force impact. All injuries were antemortem in
nature and recent in duration, whereas injury no. 1 was sufficient
to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
Hon’ble High Court
of Delhi also observed that looking into the accusation, severity
of punishment and the nature of evidence, where the witness in
the said case was father of deceased and petitioner/accused was
SC No. 764-2024 STATE Vs. DARSHAN SINGH & ANR. FIR No. 282/2024 P.S Kanjhawala Page 9 of 14
-- 9 of 14 --
apprehended at the spot and also looking into the injuries
suffered by applicant/accused; no ground for bail was made out
and the bail application was dismissed.
In the case of
Ashok Dhankad vs State of NCT of
Delhi & Anr. (supra); case of
Ajwar v. Waseem, (2024) 10 SCC
768 was relied wherein following relevant parameters for
granting bail were laid down:-
“Relevant parameters for granting bail
26. While considering as to whether bail ought to be granted in a
matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must
consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made
against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to
have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role
attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the
accused, the probability of tampering of the witnesses and
repeating the offence, if the accused are released on bail, the
likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is
granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and
evading the courts of justice and the overall desirability of
releasing the accused on bail. [Refer : Chaman Lal vs State of
U.P., [Chaman Lal v. State of U.P., (2004) 7 SCC 525 : 2004
SCC (Cri) 1974] ; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan
[Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528 :
2004 SCC (Cri) 1977] ; Masroor v. State of U.P. [Masroor v.
State of U.P., (2009) 14 SCC 286 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1368] ;
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee [ Prasanta Kumar
Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 : (2011) 3 SCC
(Cri) 765] ; Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State
of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527] ; Anil
Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Anil Kumar Yadav v.
State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 12 SCC 129 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri)
425] ; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar [Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar,
(2020) 2 SCC 118 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 558] .]”
In the case of
Satish Jaggi vs State of Chattisgarh &
Ors. (supra) it was
inter alia held by the
Apex Court that it is
settled law that in granting or non granting of bail in non bailable
SC No. 764-2024 STATE Vs. DARSHAN SINGH & ANR. FIR No. 282/2024 P.S Kanjhawala Page 10 of 14
-- 10 of 14 --
offence, the primary consideration is the nature and gravity of the
offence. In the said case, respondent no. 3 was accused of
murdering a rival political leader while campaigning in the
election, whereas
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi did not consider
the nature and gravity of the offence while considering the bail
application of the accused. Granted bail was cancelled by
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
It is trite law that FIR is not an encyclopedia of case of
prosecution. Had it been so, there would have been no need for
the legislature to mandate culmination of investigation in 90/60
days period in appropriate cases by filing the final report of
investigation. The averments in GD No. 0113A, dated
08/06/2024 of Police Station Kanjhawala were not fully
descriptive of the sequence of events of the incident in question.
It cannot be made a tool to carve out ground for bail therefrom.
The entire material collected during the course of investigation
put forth with the charge-sheets needs to be considered in totality.
It is the case of prosecution that at Shani Bazar there
was traffic congestion. Accused Darshan @ Somu, resident of
Rani Khera, was trying to regulate the traffic in front of his own
home. Some hot talks took place between deceased Sandeep
Dabas and Darshan @ Somu. After sometime deceased Sandeep
Dabas moved towards his home in his car. It is also the case of
prosecution borne out from statements of witnesses recorded
during the course of investigation including of statement of PW
Mohit Deshwal that after few minutes while deceased Sandeep
SC No. 764-2024 STATE Vs. DARSHAN SINGH & ANR. FIR No. 282/2024 P.S Kanjhawala Page 11 of 14
-- 11 of 14 --
Dabas was moving in his car ahead; he was chased by Darshan
@ Somu and applicant/accused Pradeep Singh Deshwal; later to
which, from the driver side accused Darshan @ Somu quarreled
with Sandeep Dabas whereas applicant/accused Pradeep Singh
Deshwal had apprehended Sandeep and then accused Darshan @
Somu picked up iron stand (LED light) affixed in the shop in the
in the side of Sham Bazar and hit on the head of Sandeep. Blood
came out from the head of Sandeep Dabas and he fell down on
the road. It is also the version of the prosecution emanating from
the statement of complainant Pardeep, brother of Sandeep Dabas
that prior to expiry, deceased Sandeep Dabas had stated to him
(Pardeep) on the way to hospital that Darshan, son of Dharamvir
and his brother killed him and that Darshan had hit the electric
stand on his head. Ld. Defence Counsel for applicant/accused
Pradeep Singh Deshwal vehementally argued that accused
Darshan had two brothers and in the statement of complainant
Pardeep, the name of said brother of Sandeep, as Pradeep Singh
Deshwal, does not finds mention.
True that the Forensic Expert in the provided
examination report of the electronic record evidence in CCTV
footage opined that the facial image recognition could not be
carried out due to insufficient image data. Fact also remains that
the said CCTV footage had been shown during the course of
investigation to the witnesses of the prosecution, as per the
submissions of Ld. Chief Public Prosecutor for State assisted by
Ld. Counsel for complainant. The CCTV analysis with date and
SC No. 764-2024 STATE Vs. DARSHAN SINGH & ANR. FIR No. 282/2024 P.S Kanjhawala Page 12 of 14
-- 12 of 14 --
timings has been placed on record by the Investigating Agency
inter alia recording the sequence of events of the incident with
the presence of applicant/accused Pradeep Singh Deshwal, as per
version of prosecution put forth. Said CCTV footage is required
to be put before the witnesses of prosecution during the course of
their evidence.
Autopsy Surgeon observed fracture of left frontal
bones of skull; diffuse thin film of subdural hemorrhage over
both cerebral hemispheres of skull; brain matter congested and
oedematous; in the examination of the head of deceased Sandeep
Dabas and the opinion given was that cause of death of deceased
Sandeep Dabas was craniocerebral damage as a result of blunt
force/object impact, all injuries being antemortem in nature.
Autopsy Surgeon in subsequent opinion of date 28/06/2024
mentioned that after going through injuries mentioned in
postmortem report and examining the weapon of offence i.e., the
iron stand, his opinion was that injury no. 1 i.e., lacerated wound
9 x 2 cm x brain matter deep on left frontal region; was possible
with weapon examined or similar one.
Applicant/accused Pradeep Singh Deshwal is facing
trial for commission of offence under Section 341 read with
Section 34 IPC and under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
Accordingly, applicant/accused Pradeep Singh Deshwal is facing
trial for serious criminal offence of murder while sharing
common intention. The nature of accusations made against
applicant/accused; the manner in which the crime is alleged to
SC No. 764-2024 STATE Vs. DARSHAN SINGH & ANR. FIR No. 282/2024 P.S Kanjhawala Page 13 of 14
-- 13 of 14 --
have been committed; the gravity of the offence; the role
attributed to applicant/accused; the trial having commenced and
four prosecution witnesses having been examined while several
other material and eye witnesses are yet to be examined; the
probability of tampering of evidence and influencing the local
witnesses by applicant/accused Pradeep Singh Deshwal, if
enlarged on bail; the probable chances of applicant/accused
Pradeep Singh Deshwal fleeing from course of justice, to evade
the due process of law besides threatening witnesses; in the fact
of the matter disentitle applicant/accused Pradeep Singh Deshwal
to be enlarged on bail, in view of plethora of law laid down by
Apex Court, elicited in preceding paragraphs. No case for
enlarging applicant/accused Pradeep Singh Deshwal on bail is
made out.
Application for regular bail of applicant/accused
Pradeep Singh Deshwal is dismissed.
Copy of this order be sent to concerned Jail
Superintendent for information.
As prayed, copy of this order be given dasti to Counsel
for applicant/accused Pradeep Singh Deshwal.
Put up on date already fixed i.e., 27/09/2025 for PE.
(Gurvinder Pal Singh)
Principal District & Sessions Judge (NW)
Rohini Courts, Delhi (DK) checked
SC No. 764-2024 STATE Vs. DARSHAN SINGH & ANR. FIR No. 282/2024 P.S Kanjhawala Page 14 of 14
-- 14 of 14 --