Order 25

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 1
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.
22.09.2025
File taken up today on bail application of
applicant/accused Akash @ Danny.
Present: Sh. Parmod Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for State.
Sh. Ashok Kumar, Ld. counsel for applicant/accused
Akash @ Danny.
Arguments on bail application heard.
Put up for orders at 4.00 pm.
(Charu Aggarwal)
ASJ-02/E-Court/Shahdara
KKD/Delhi/22.09.2025
At 4.00 pm.
ORDER ON REGULAR BAIL APPLICATION OF
APPLICANT/ACCUSED AKASH @ DANNY.
1. This is the 4th bail application u/s 483 BNSS filed by
the 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.
-- 1 of 4 --
2
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
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.
4. Ld. Addl. PP has opposed this application firstly on
the ground that on 06.06.2025, the applicant’s last bail
application was dismissed by this court and since then there
is no change of circumstance to file this application. 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
-- 2 of 4 --
3
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. It is matter of record that applicant’s last bail
application was dismissed by this court on 06.06.2025,
therefore, Ld. counsel was enquired about the change of
circumstance to file the instant application since dismissal of
his last bail application, but no satisfactory reply to this
query came from the side of applicant. Though, there is no
bar in filing subsequent bail applications, but subject to
change of circumstance but here no change of circumstance
could be pointed out by the counsel for applicant,hence, this
application deserves to be dismissed on this count alone.
7. It is argued on behalf of applicant that he deserves to
be admitted on bail on the ground of parity since co-accused
Rajan Chaudhary has already been admitted on bail,
however, the ground of parity is not available to the
applicant since the role attributed to co-accused Rajan
Chaudhary in the alleged incident is distinct from the role
ascribed to 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 came at the spot.
-- 3 of 4 --
4
Thus, ground of parity is not available to the applicant.
8. 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.
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.
Copy of this order be sent to Jail Suptd. concerned for
information to applicant.
(Charu Aggarwal)
ASJ-02/E-Court/Shahdara
KKD/Delhi/22.09.2025
-- 4 of 4 --