Interim Order 19

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: SC No. 201/2024
IA No. 2/2026
State Vs. Dishant @ Lalla
FIR No. 5/2024
PS Anand Vihar Railway Station
U/s 302/397/412/34 IPC
01.08.2026
This is 2nd application u/s 483 BNSS for grant of
regular bail moved on behalf of applicant/accused Dishant @
Lalla.
Present:- Sh. F M Ansari, Ld. Substitute Additional PP for the
State.
Sh. Rajiv Pratap Singh, Ld. Counsel for applicant/
accused Dishant @ Lalla.
IO/Insp. Proshun present.
ORDER
1. It is argued by Ld. counsel for applicant/accused that
he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he was
arrested on 31.01.2024, since then he is in JC. He has never been
convicted in any criminal case till date. He has no role in the
commission of crime and he has been arrayed as an accused
solely on the basis of doubtful and disputed investigation, the
veracity of which is yet to be tested during trial. Charge-sheet
does not disclose any cogent, credible or legally admissible
evidence against him. His custodial interrogation is not required.
On 01.12.2025, the charges have already been framed against
accused persons and also several prosecution witnesses have
already been examined. The prosecution case rests upon disputed
facts and circumstantial evidence whose truthfulness,
admissibility and evidentiary value can only be determined
Page 1 of 6
-- 1 of 6 --
during trial. The material collected during investigation does not
conclusively establish the involvement of applicant in the
commission of alleged offence. He has clean antecedents and he
is not a previous convict nor involved in any case. He belongs to
a poor family and he is only bread earner of his family, consisting
of his old aged ill family members. There is no chance of his
absconding or tampering with the evidence. There exist material
discrepancies in the prosecution case regarding the alleged
recovery. As per the statement of father of deceased, he was
carrying a vivo mobile phone, whereas the alleged recovery
attributed to applicant is an Oppo mobile phone. The said
contradiction strikes at the root of the prosecution story and
raises serious doubts regarding the genuineness of alleged
recovery. Recovery has been effected from the public place,
investigating agency failed to associate any independent public
witnesses with recovery proceedings. No plausible explanation
has been furnished for such omission. The prosecution case is
based substantially upon alleged CCTV footage and
circumstantial evidence. FSL report has not been brought on
record despite lapse of considerable time. The authenticity,
continuity and evidentiary value of the alleged footage can only
be determined during trial. Prosecution version regarding
identification of applicant is still subject to strict proof and cross-
examination. No TIP of accused was conducted. Prosecution is
yet to examine several material witnesses. Complainant/father of
deceased failed to appear before the Court and then, his BWs was
issued. Prosecution has cited numerous witnesses and substantial
documentary and forensic evidence, which is yet to be led. There
Page 2 of 6
-- 2 of 6 --
is no direct ocular evidence demonstrating his participation in the
commission of crime. His 1st bail application was dismissed on
27.05.2025. No purpose would be served by keeping the accused
behind the bars and trial will take considerable time.
2. Ld. Counsel for accused has relied upon some
judgments titled as follows:-
1. Vaman Narain Ghiya Vs. State of Rajasthan (2009) 2 SCC
281.
2. State of Kerala Vs. Raneef (2011) 1 SCC 784.
3. Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI, 2012 SCC 40.
4. Anil Kumar Vs. State NCT of Delhi.
5. Rakesh Vs. State NCT of Delhi.
6. Sandeep Vs. State NCT of Delhi.
7. Dharamvir Vs. State of Haryana & Punjab.
8. Sunil Vs. State.
9. Anil Mahajan Vs. Commissioner of Customs, 2000 (2)
JCC Delhi 302.
10. Siddharam Satlingapaa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra &
Anr in Crl. Appeal No. 2271/2010.
11. State of Gujarat Vs. Gadhvi Rambhai Nathabhai & Ors,
1994 SCC 111.
12. Sushil Ansal Vs. CBI, 1999 (1) Delhi 12.
3. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has opposed the bail
application on the ground of gravity of offence and that material
witnesses i.e. father of deceased and some other public witnesses
have not been examined. Applicant/accused has played an active
role in the crime and he was captured in the CCTV footage while
committing crime.
Page 3 of 6
-- 3 of 6 --
4. IO has filed a reply and opposed the bail application.
5. I have heard the rival contentions of the bail
application and perused the record.
6. As per the case of prosecution, on receiving DD No.
10A dt. 29.01.2024, ASI Shankar reached the spot i.e. Mandawali
Railway Station Stairs where he found SI Pradeep, Crime Team
and Mobile Forensic Team at the spot and he came to know that
injured had been shifted to LBS Hospital by PCR. At the instance
of crime team, ASI Shankar lifted the exhibits as per procedure
and handed over seal to Ct. Sachin. Thereafter, ASI along with
Ct. Sachin reached LBS Hospital and on MLC No. 1027/24 dt.
29.01.2024, Deepak was found admitted and doctor had declared
him brought dead. ASI Shankar took the photographs of the
deceased from his mobile phone. Thereafter, he met Chabi Kant
Jha (Father of deceased) told that when his son left the house, he
had his mobile phone, some cash and some documents along
with him.
7. On 30.01.2024, the postmortem of deceased was
conducted by the doctor of LBS Hospital and it was opined
verbally that the cause of death is smothering and asphyxia.
Keeping in view, the circumstances and verbal opinion, a case u/s
302 IPC vide FIR No. 05/2024 was registered at the PS and
investigation of the present case was handed over to Insp.
Prosun.
8. During investigation, IO along with ASI Sanjay
Nagar, HC Mohan, Ct. Manjeet reached at the spot. Thereafter,
SHO along with ASI Shankar were also found present. SI
Pradeep of PS Mandawali was called at the spot. On the pointing
Page 4 of 6
-- 4 of 6 --
out of SI Pradeep, the site plan was prepared. On the inspection
of the scene of crime team, CCTV camera was found installed at
the Mosque. On checking the same, he came to know that on
29.01.2024 at night time, three young boys were found beating
one person. The hard disk of DVR camera was seized.
9. On basis of CCTV footage, the accused persons
were identified as Baru Laxman Kumar and Dishant @ Lalla and
they disclosed their involvements in the crime and
applicant/accused Dishant @ Lalla got recovered one mobile
phone make OPPO and two earbuds, which they had robbed from
deceased Deepak Jha on 28-29.01.2024 and killed him. The DVR
has been sent to FSL Rohini and the report is awaited and as such
further investigation is not concluded. IO had seen the CCTV
footage, though he had not brought on record copy of the same
and till the report of the FSL comes, the accused cannot take
benefit of non-availability of CCTV as IO had seen it in which
accused persons were seen hitting the deceased. As per PMR,
there are 19 antemortem injuries and as per DNA analysis, the
blood was on the shirt of accused Baru Laxman matched with the
DNA profile of the deceased.
10. PW Chavi Kant Jha is partly examined and his
examination is deferred for want of the CCTV footage and three
other witnesses have been examined. Some public witnesses are
yet to be examined. Charges against accused are u/s
302/394/397/34 IPC, are grave in nature and grievous injuries
were caused to deceased and recovery of robbed mobile phone
was effected from applicant/accused. The judgments cited by Ld.
Counsel for accused are not applicable to the present facts and
Page 5 of 6
-- 5 of 6 --
circumstances of the case at the present stage.
11. Considering the above facts and circumstances of
the case, the 2nd regular bail application of applicant/accused
Dishant @ Lalla is hereby dismissed.
The bail application is accordingly disposed of.
Copy of this order be sent to Jail superintendent
concerned, IO/SHO concerned and be given dasti to Ld. counsel
for accused.
(Kumar Rajat)
ASJ-07/SHD/KKD Courts/Delhi
01.08.2026
Page 6 of 6
-- 6 of 6 --