Ranjeet @ Ranjeet Verma v. State Of NCT Of Delhi
$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 2389/2025 RANJEET @ RANJEET VERMA .....Petitioner Through:
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Jha, Advocate versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through:
Mr. Pardeep Gahlot, APP
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
O R D E R
% 28.10.2025 1.
Application under Section 483 read with Section 187(3) and 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as "BNSS") has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner/Ranjeet @ Ranjeet Verma for grant of Default Bail in case FIR No.57/2025 under Sections 110/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nvaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as "BNS") registered at Police Station Vasant Kunj, South. 2.
It is submitted that initially the FIR was registered under Section 110 BNS, which does not entail either death imprisonment or sentence for life. Therefore the investigation should have been concluded within a period of 60 days. The Chargesheet has been filed beyond the period of 60 days and, therefore, the Petitioner is entitled to default Bail. 3.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal vs. Dinesh Dalmia, AIR 2007 SC 1801 ; M. Ravindran vs. The Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, 2020 (12) SCALE 190 ; The State of West Bengal vs. Jayeeta Das, 2024 INSC 313 ; Ashish Pathak vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Bail Application No. 3836/2024. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/10/2025 at 12:05:15
4.
Learned Add. APP has raised a preliminary objection that the Order dismissing the default Bail Application is a revisable Order, which should have been challenged before the Court of Sessions. He submits that the Petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court directly, whereas he ought to have filed a Revision Petition against the said Order before the Court of Sessions.
5.
Learned Add. APP has opposed the present Bail Application on the ground that the Chargesheet has been filed for the offence under Section 109 BNS within a period of 90 days, in terms of Section 187(3) BNSS. 6.
On merits it is stated that even though the FIR was initially registered under Section 110/3(5) BNS, the investigation revealed the commission of an offence under Section 109 BNS, as the injured person had suffered grievous injuries.
Submissions heard and record perused.
7.
The offence prima facie under Section 109 BNS was disclosed during the course of the investigation, under which the Chargesheet has been filed. Since the offence under Section 109 BNS is punishable with imprisonment for life, the period for investigation and filing of the Chargesheet is 90 days in terms of Section 187(3) BNSS, as has been rightly observed by the learned ACJM in the impugned Order dated 02.05.2025.
8.
There is no infirmity in the impugned Order and the same is liable to be rejected.
9.
There is no ground for grant of Bail and the same is accordingly dismissed.
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
OCTOBER 28, 2025/p'ma The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/10/2025 at 12:05:15