Order 34

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF MS. SURABHI SHARMA VATS, ASJ-04
(SHAHDARA), KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
SC No. 388/2023, IA No. 19/2026
State Vs. Gaurav
FIR No. 476/2023
PS Harsh Vihar
U/s 302/307/34 IPC
20.05.2026
File taken up on an application under Section 483 BNSS
seeking regular bail moved on behalf of the applicant/accused
Gaurav.
Present: Sh. S.K. Dubey, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Sh. Amit Tyagi, Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused.
Father of the victim/deceased.
Arguments on the present bail application heard.
1. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the applicant/ accused
that applicant/ accused has been falsely implicated in the present case;
that the applicant/accused has nothing to do with the alleged offences;
that the investigation of the present case is complete, chargesheet has
already been filed and the matter is at the stage of Prosecution
Evidence, therefore, no purpose would be served by keeping the
applicant/accused behind bars.
2. It is further argued that the eye-witness/complainant has
already been examined and cross-examined and there are material
contradictions in his statement. Further, the co-accused persons
namely Ranjeet @ Chander, Kuldeep @ Landa, Suraj @ Kachri,
Himanshu Sharma and Himanshu have already been admitted on bail,
therefore, the applicant/accused also deserves to be released on bail
on the ground of parity. The applicant/accused is ready to abide by all
the terms and conditions and is also ready to furnish reliable surety to
the entire satisfaction of the Hon’ble Court.
-- 1 of 8 --
3. Per-contra, Ld. PP for the State has opposed this bail
application while submitting that the allegations and offences against
the accused/ applicant Gaurav are grave in nature. As per the case of
the Prosecution as per FIR is that on 13.08.2023, at about 8:30 PM,
the complainant Mohit alongwith his friends Kuldeep @ Landa and
Shrikrishan @ Saajan had gone to a vacant plot near Prem Nagar
Chowk in UP; that Kuldeep’s friend Suraj @Vikas @ Kachri also
came there; then, Kuldeep @ Landa and Suraj @ Vikas @ Kachri
consumed liquor there; meanwhile, Suraj @ Vikas @ Kachri had an
altercation with some boy and scuffle/manhandling took place
between them. It is further stated that there were three other boys
present along with a tall boy; the accused Kuldeep @ Landa also
started fighting with those boys in support of his friend Suraj @
Vikas @ Kachri; in the meanwhile, one friend of Kachri who was
having vermillion on his head and was wearing jeans, also came
there; the taller boy also called 2-3 more boys there, due to which,
quarrel escalated; that one of those boys, who came later, was having
knife in his hand and the other boys who were present there picked up
bricks and stones in their hands and then, all those boys while abusing
attacked upon the complainant/injured Mohit and his friends, in a
deadly manner; that the boy who was having knife in his hand,
stabbed the complainant/injured Mohit @ Babu and his friend Saajan
(now deceased) with the knife; the public persons gathered there;
seeing blood oozing out from the person of Mohit @ Babu and
Saajan, Kuldeep @ Landa and Vikas @ Kachri fled away from the
spot.
4. During the course of investigation, on 14.08.2023, Crack
Team Members of PS Harsh Vihar had produced four persons i.e.
applicant/accused Gaurav and accused presons namely Ranjeet
-- 2 of 8 --
Kumar Chander, Himanshu S/o Rajender and Himanshu Sharma
before the IO and it was informed that when they inquired about the
incident, the informer informed that these four boys were present at
the spot at the time of the incident and they were suspected to be
involved in the incident, therefore, they had brought the accused
persons to the PS for enquiry. The complainant/victim Mohit
identified all the four persons including the applicant/accused Gaurav
and stated that they attacked victim/deceased Saajan and him with a
knife on 13.08.2023. He further stated that accused Himanshu Sharma
S/o Sh. Pramod Kumar and co-accused Himanshu caught hold of
victim/deceased Saajan and the boy namely Gaurav had stabbed
victim/deceased Saajan; that accused/applicant Gaurav had also
stabbed him and remaining three accused persons had attacked upon
Saajan and him with pieces of bricks.
5. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has further stated that
Postmortem Report of the deceased/victim reveals the cause of death
as Haemorrhagic shock as a result of antemortem injury to right thigh
and its associated blood vessels produced by single edges sharp
cutting/stabbing weapon via injury 1 (incised Stab wound of size 1.6
cm x 0.5 cm x 3.5 cm is obliquely present over anterior aspect of right
thigh, 10.0 cm below right anterior superior iliac spine and 81.0 cm
above right heel. One end of wound is wright anteriors the other end.
The direction of the wound is backwards, downwards and laterally
and goes cutting skin, subcutaneoun tissue, Femoral artery, Femoral
vein and Pectineus muscle. On further exploration extravasation of
blood present throughout the track of the wound and about 200 grams
of blood clots are present in anterior compartment of thigh in
muscular plane region. Depth of the wound is 3.5 cm. Wound is
-- 3 of 8 --
muscle deep.) is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of
nature.
6. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that the
applicant/accused Gaurav stands on an entirely different footing from
the co-accused persons who have been admitted to bail; that the
incident took place between two groups consisting of four persons
each and the applicant/accused Gaurav has been assigned a specific,
direct and active role in the commission of the offence. It is further
submitted that out of the persons belonging to the side of the
victims/injureds who survived the incident, namely complainant
Mohit (who is himself an injured eye-witness) and accused Kuldeep
@ Landa and Vikas @ Kachri (who were initially eye-witnesses of
the case), all three had, in their initial statements recorded during
investigation, categorically identified the applicant/accused and
consistently attributed to him the act of inflicting knife injuries upon
victim/deceased Saajan, resulting in his death, and also causing knife
injuries to the complainant/injured Mohit. It is further submitted that
the allegations against the applicant/accused are not omnibus in
nature but disclose his specific and active role in the assault,
therefore, no benefit of parity can be extended to him and the present
bail application deserves to be dismissed.
7. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has further argued that while
considering an application for bail, the Court is not required to
undertake a minute or detailed appreciation of evidence or evaluate
the credibility and probative value of witness testimony on merits,
therefore, the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant
regarding alleged contradictions or inconsistencies in the testimony of
the complainant is not to be determined at this stage. It is further
-- 4 of 8 --
submitted that the complainant is not merely an eye-witness but is
himself an injured victim of the incident, who sustained knife injuries
during the occurrence in which one person lost his life; that in such
circumstances, there is possibility that certain variations or
inconsistencies may have occurred in his deposition on account of
mental anguish, trauma or the effect of having witnessed such a brutal
incident and suffered the incident; such aspects are matters of
appreciation of evidence and are required to be tested during trial in
the light of the entire evidence on record. Further, the family and
parents of the deceased, who have already suffered an irreparable
loss, cannot be made to suffer further solely on account of alleged
deviations in the testimony of the complainant/injured witness,
especially when the trial is still underway and the Prosecution
evidence is yet to be appreciated in its entirety. Accordingly, no
ground for grant of regular bail is made out in favour of the
applicant/accused.
8. Father of the victim/deceased has also strongly opposed
the bail application of the applicant/accused and has stated that no
bail may be granted to the applicant/accused who has killed his son
by stabbing him.
9. Arguments on this application heard. Record perused.
10. As per the case of Prosecution, the accused persons in
furtherance of their common intention, committed deadly attack upon
the complainant/injured Mohit @ Babu and Saajan (deceased) with a
knife, pieces of bricks and stones lying there and consequently killing
Saajan.
-- 5 of 8 --
The allegations against the applicant/accused Gaurav are
grave in nature. It is stated that during the investigation, the
victim/complainant Mohit and accused Kuldeep Landa and Vikas @
Kachri (who were initially witnesses of the present case) identified
the accused persons namely Gaurav (applicant/ accused), Ranjeet
Kumar Chander, Himanshu S/o Rajender and Himanshu Sharma and
specifically attributed to the present applicant/accused Gaurav the
role of inflicting knife injuries upon the deceased Saajan, which
ultimately resulted in his death, and also causing knife injuries to the
complainant himself.
Although the defence has sought to rely upon certain
alleged contradictions and inconsistencies in the deposition of the
complainant/injured eye-witness, however, it is settled law that at the
stage of consideration of bail, this Court is not required to undertake a
meticulous appreciation of evidence or conduct a roving inquiry into
the credibility or evidentiary value of witness testimony; further, the
testimony of the complainant cannot be read in isolation and the
entire Prosecution case, including the nature of allegations, medical
evidence, surrounding circumstances and other material collected
during investigation, is yet to be tested during the trial which is at a
nascent stage.
Ld. Addl. PP for the State has submitted, and this Court
finds substance in the said submission, that the complainant is not
merely an eye-witness but is himself an injured victim who allegedly
sustained knife injuries during the incident and considering that he is
also a victim and witness to an incident involving serious violence
and loss of life, the possibility of certain variations or inconsistencies
in his deposition owing to the trauma, mental anguish or
psychological impact of witnessing and undergoing such occurrence
cannot be ruled out at this stage. Therefore, any such alleged
-- 6 of 8 --
inconsistencies cannot be viewed in isolation and are matters
requiring appreciation of evidence during trial after the entire
evidence is brought on record. The family of the deceased, who has
already suffered an irreparable loss, cannot be prejudiced solely on
account of such alleged deviations when the prosecution evidence is
yet to be appreciated in its entirety.
Further, the principle of parity cannot be mechanically
applied and the role attributed to each accused has to be
independently examined. In the present case, a specific and direct role
has been attributed to the applicant/accused of using the knife in the
initial statement of victim Mohit and causing fatal injuries to the
victim/deceased Saajan and also injuries to the complainant/victim
Mohit, therefore, the applicant/accused does not appear to stand on
the same footing as the co-accused who have already been granted
bail since, the allegations against them was that they caught hold of
victim/deceased and of pelting stones and bricks.
Considering the totality of the facts, circumstances,
manner in which the offences in question are allegedly committed,
role of the applicant/accused coupled with above stated reasons, this
Court does not find it a fit case to grant bail to the accused/ applicant
Gaurav, at this stage. Therefore, the present bail application stands,
dismissed.
11.
Nothing expressed hereinabove, shall tantamount to any
opinion on the merits of this case.
12. In complicance of directions of Hon’ble Supereme Court
in case titled ‘
In Re: Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail’, Writ Petition
(Crl.) No. 04/2021 dated 31.01.2023, e-copy of this order be sent to
-- 7 of 8 --
applicant via e-mail through concerned Jail Superintendent for
information.
13. Copy of the order be given dasti to Ld. Counsel for
applicant/ accused and to the I.O, as per rules. Bail application stands
disposed of.
(SURABHI SHARMA VATS)
ASJ-04, Shahdara/KKD Courts,
Delhi/ 20.05.2026
-- 8 of 8 --