Ankit Kumar v. State Of NCT Of Delhi

$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 768/2025 ANKIT KUMAR .....Petitioner Through:

Mr.

Chirag Madan, Mr.

Rahul Agarwal, Mr. Ronit Bose, Advocates.

versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through:

Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for the State.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

O R D E R

% 10.03.2025 CRL.M.A. 5571/2025 (exemption) 1.

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2.

Application stands disposed of.

BAIL APPLN. 768/2025 3.

By way of this application, the applicant seeks grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR bearing no. 34/2021, registered at Police Station Hauz Qazi, Delhi for offence punishable under Sections 302/307/323/341/ 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter 'IPC') and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

4.

Briefly stated, facts of the present case are that on 08.02.2021, at 11:25 PM, an information qua an MLC from Lok Nayak Hospital was received at P.S. Hauz Qazi, Delhi vide GD no. 89A. In the said information, it was intimated that a person namely Anshu Gupta, aged about 24 years, The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

had been admitted by his brother namely Vinay vide MLC no. 113950538, as he had been injured in a scuffle. However, the victim Anshu had been declared brought dead at Lok Nayak Hospital Delhi. In the meantime, the police officials had the reached the spot of incident i.e, the house of victim/deceased. It was revealed to the police officials that a scuffle had taken place between two parties, namely, (1) Vinay, Ashish, Anshu (deceased) and Geeta, and (2) Mohan, Ankit (present applicant) and Khajanchi Babu, on the issue of parking of a scooty. Resultantly, the victims namely, Vinay, Ashish, Anshu (deceased), and their mother Geeta had sustained injuries. It was further revealed by Vinay (the complainant) that the present applicant had grabbed the deceased from his neck and coaccused Mohan had stabbed the deceased's chest with a knife. Subsequently, on the statement of Vinay, the present FIR was registered. During further investigation, on 09.02.2021, all the three accused persons were apprehended and arrested.

5.

The learned counsel appearing for the present accused/applicant argues that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and he has been in judicial custody since 09.02.2021. It is contended that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant, as there is no iota of evidence to suggest that the applicant has committed the alleged offence. It is argued that all the public witnesses have been examined in this case, including the eye-witnesses and the complainant, and they have not supported the case of prosecution. It is also argued that the eye-witness(es) have also not identified the applicant herein. Therefore, it is prayed that accused/applicant be granted regular bail.

6.

The learned APP for the State, on the other hand, opposes the present The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

applicant and argues that allegations against the accused are grave and serious in nature, and the applicant herein had grabbed the deceased, whereas the co-accused Mohan had stabbed him, which had caused his death.

7.

This Court has heard the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for both the parties and has perused the material on record. 8.

This Court's attention has been drawn to the testimonies of Vinay (PW-1), Ashish (PW-2) and Geeta (PW-3), who are the alleged victims/ complainant/ eye-witnesses in this case. Clearly, the said witnesses have turned hostile and have not supported the case of prosecution. They have also not identified the present applicant as one of the assailants, and rather, have deposed that the assailants were wearing face masks at the time of incident.

9.

The applicant herein has been in judicial custody for about 04 years. Out of 27 prosecution witnesses, only 04 have been examined yet, who all have turned hostile. The trial will take some time to conclude. 10.

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the applicant on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Successor Court/Link Court/Duty Judge concerned on the following terms and conditions:

i) The applicant shall surrender his passport and not leave the country without prior permission of the concerned Court. ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make an attempt to influence the witnesses, or tamper with the evidence in any The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

manner.

iii) The applicant shall share his mobile number with the concerned IO/SHO, and shall keep the same switch on/active at all times. iv) In case of change of residential address/contact details, the applicant shall promptly inform the same to the concerned Court.

v) The applicant shall appear regularly before the learned Trial Court.

11.

Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of. 12.

The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J MARCH 10, 2025/zp Click here to check corrigendum, if any The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.