Interim Order 36

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: SC No. 101/2024
State Vs. Rajan Chaudhary and ors.
(applicant/accused Akash @ Danny)
FIR No. 698/2023
PS Harsh Vihar
U/s 307/34 IPC.
07.04.2026
Present: Sh. Parmod Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for State.
None for applicant.
1. This is the 6th bail application u/s 483 BNSS filed on
behalf of applicant Akash @ Dainy seeking to grant him
regular bail, in FIR No. 698/2023 P.S. Harsh Vihar registered
under Section 307/34 IPC. Applicant is in JC since
28.12.2023.
The matter is pending before this court at the stage of
prosecution evidence.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 24.12.2023,
applicant along with two other co-accused persons namely
Vikas and Rajan Chaudhary, in furtherance of their common
intention, fired at the complainant Karan Singh but the latter
managed to save himself. Thereafter, applicant along with
co-accused Vikas fled away from the spot, but accused Rajan
Chaudhary was apprehended at the spot. Later on, applicant
was arrested on 28.12.2023.
3. Ld. counsel for applicant submits that applicant has
been falsely implicated in this case; key witnesses of the
prosecution have already been examined; no recovery was
effected from the applicant; PW Ravi has not supported the
FIR No. 698/2023 P.S. Harsh Vihar State Vs. Rajan Chaudhary (applicant Akash @ Danny) Page No. 1/5
-- 1 of 5 --
case of the prosecution; co-accused Rajan Chaudhary has
already been admitted on bail by this court on 22.05.2025,
therefore, he deserves to be admitted on bail on the ground
of parity; he is in JC for more than 1.5 years and no purpose
shall be served by keeping him further in custody especially
when all the material witnesses of the prosecution have
already been examined; no injury was sustained by anyone
in the alleged incident; the last bail application of the
applicant was dismissed by this court on 04.11.2025 and
thereafter applicant has further remained in JC for five
months.
4. Ld. Addl. PP has opposed the present application
firstly on the ground that there is no change of circumstance
since dismissal of applicant’s last bail application on
04.11.2025. On merits, he submits that complainant Karan
Singh (PW1) and his brothers namely Mangal Singh (PW3)
and Surender Singh (PW5), all eye witnesses to the incident,
have supported the prosecution case and specifically named
and identified the applicant during their respective evidence.
He also submits that pistol was recovered from the
possession of the applicant, which, as per FSL report, has
matched with the live cartridge recovered from the spot,
indicating his potential link in the alleged incident.
Applicant is argued to be involved in several other cases.
5. Arguments considered.
6. The one of the grounds on which bail is sought is
parity with co-accused Rajan Chaudhary, however, the role
attributed to said accused is distinct from the role ascribed to
FIR No. 698/2023 P.S. Harsh Vihar State Vs. Rajan Chaudhary (applicant Akash @ Danny) Page No. 2/5
-- 2 of 5 --
the applicant. As per the case of the prosecution, applicant
was actively involved in the crime, who allegedly fired upon
the complainant with pistol, whereas, the role ascribed to
accused Rajan Chaudhary is only of driving the motorcycle
on which accused persons reached at the spot. Thus, the
ground of parity is not available to the applicant.
7. On merits, Ld. counsel for applicant has argued that
all the material witnesses have been examined by the
prosecution, out of whom PW4 Ravi has not supported the
case of the prosecution. It is settled law that at the stage of
bail, the court is not required to analyze the evidence in
depth as the same may influence the trial and final outcome
of the case but the court may look into the evidence only for
the purpose of ascertaining prima facie involvement of
accused in the alleged crime.
Here, on prima facie perusal of
evidence of eye witnesses, especially PW1, PW3 and PW5,
it appears that they have supported the case of the
prosecution. The role ascribed to the applicant in the crime is
specific. As per previous involvement report filed by the IO,
applicant is involved in several other cases. Long
incarceration itself is no ground to admit the applicant on
bail.
In the totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage,
no ground for bail is made out. Hence, the present
application is hereby dismissed.
Nothing stated herein above shall tantamount to the
expression of opinion on merits of the case.
FIR No. 698/2023 P.S. Harsh Vihar State Vs. Rajan Chaudhary (applicant Akash @ Danny) Page No. 3/5
-- 3 of 5 --
Copy of this order be sent to Jail Suptd. concerned for
information to applicant.
(Charu Aggarwal)
ASJ-02/E-Court/Shahdara
KKD/Delhi/07.04.2026
FIR No. 698/2023 P.S. Harsh Vihar State Vs. Rajan Chaudhary (applicant Akash @ Danny) Page No. 4/5
-- 4 of 5 --
COVERSHEET
It is informed to the applicant that he can avail the
services of legal aid from Delhi State Legal Service Authority
Office at Karkardooma Court- Room No. 35 & 36, Districts
Shahdara, Ground Floor, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Contact Number of Ms. Suman, Ld. Legal Aid Defence counsel
(attached to this court): 9810642134.
(Charu Aggarwal)
ASJ-02/E-Court/Shahdara
KKD/Delhi/07.04.2026
FIR No. 698/2023 P.S. Harsh Vihar State Vs. Rajan Chaudhary (applicant Akash @ Danny) Page No. 5/5
-- 5 of 5 --