SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 1 Wednesday, January 29, 2025
Printed For: Geetanjali Reddy, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2024 SCC OnLine Del 7810
In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
(BEFORE AMIT MAHAJAN, J.)
Deepak Tiwari … Applicant;
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi) … Respondent.
BAIL APPLN. 1628/2024 and CRL.M.A. 14166/2024
Decided on November 11, 2024
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Applicant : Mr. Z.A. Siddiqui, Adv.
For the Respondent : Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, Mr. Lalit Sharma, Ms.
Divya Narang, Ms. Poonam Sachdeva, Mr. Nitesh Sapra, Ms. Bhawna
Gandhi, Ms. Ashna Bhalla, Ms. Somya Bhagat & Ms. Shrishti Setia,
Advocates.
SI Tilak Raj, PS Ranhola
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
AMIT MAHAJAN, J.:— The present application is filed seeking regular
bail in FIR No. 08/2019 dated 07.01.2019, registered at Police Station
Ranhola for offences under Sections 302/34 of the Penal Code, 1860
(IPC), and under Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
2. Briefly stated, on 06.01.2019, the police received information
regarding an incident where two persons, later identified as Deepak and
Neeraj, were found injured and bleeding on Baprola Main Road, near a
local school. They were immediately transported to a hospital, where
they were declared brought dead. It is alleged that both had sustained
gunshot injuries. Consequently, the present FIR was registered.
3. During the investigation, the scene of the alleged crime was
examined, whereby, bloodstains, two damaged bullet shells, and stones
scattered near the location of the bodies were found. The postmortem
reports indicated that both deceased persons had suffered multiple
gunshot wounds. Neeraj had wounds to his collarbone and chest, while
Deepak sustained a bullet wound to his left shoulder. The post-mortem
reports confirmed that these gunshot wounds were the cause of death.
4. During the investigation, it was revealed that Deepak Tiwari
(applicant/accused), his brother and a co-accused, had animosity with
the victims. The statement of eyewitness - Sachin Thapa was recorded
under Section 161 of the CrPC, wherein he stated that he was with the
deceased at the time when the accused, Deepak Tiwari and Suraj
Tiwari, opened fire on them. He further stated that he narrowly escaped
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 2 Wednesday, January 29, 2025
Printed For: Geetanjali Reddy, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and saved his life.
5. It was further revealed that accused Deepak Tiwari and his
coaccused were arrested in connection with another FIR bearing No.
06/2019 dated 09.01.2019 for offence under Section 25 of the Arms
Act, and had disclosed their involvement in the present case during
police interrogation. The applicant was formally arrested on
28.01.2019.
6. It is alleged that the accused, Deepak Tiwari, in his disclosure
statement, stated that the deceased, Neeraj, had been involved in an
affair with his sister, which caused embarrassment to his family. This
led him to procure a pistol and other ammunitions. He also admitted to
stealing a bike and altering its number to execute the crime.
7. During the investigation, the weapons used in the alleged offence,
along with the fired ammunition were seized and were sent to the
Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for analysis. The FSL report
confirmed that the bullets recovered from the body of the deceased had
been fired from the weapon recovered from the accused.
8. After the completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was
filed in the present case for offences under Sections 302/307/34 of the
IPC and for offences under Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.
9. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant
has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submitted that the
petitioner was not present at the scene of the crime at the time of the
alleged incident and that the entire case against him is based on false
and fabricated evidence. He submitted that the statements of the
prosecution witnesses, including the alleged eyewitness, were
inconsistent and unreliable, pointing out contradictions in their
testimonies recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC and during the
cross-examination.
10. He submitted that the applicant had been granted interim bail
on several occasions and had not misused the liberty granted to him. It
was also submitted that the petitioner was a young individual with a
promising future and that prolonged detention without conclusive
evidence would be detrimental to his life and career.
11. Per Contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) for
the State submitted that the offences alleged against the applicant are
of a grave and heinous nature, involving pre-meditated murder of two
individuals. He argued that the prosecution has produced sufficient
prima facie evidence, including eyewitness testimony, forensic findings,
and ballistic reports, all of which implicate the applicant in the alleged
offence.
12. It is submitted that the testimony of eye witness - Sachin
Thapa, the prosecution's key witness, clearly identifies the applicant as
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 3 Wednesday, January 29, 2025
Printed For: Geetanjali Reddy, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
being involved in the altercation and the subsequent firing. The learned
APP further contended that releasing the applicant on bail at this stage
would jeopardize the ongoing trial. The prosecution also underscores
the seriousness of the charges against the applicant.
Conclusion
13. It is settled law that the Court, while considering the application
for grant of bail, has to keep certain factors in mind, such as, whether
there is a prima facie case or reasonable ground to believe that the
accused has committed the offence; the nature and gravity of the
accusation; severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; the
danger of the accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail;
reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being threatened; etc.
14. In the present case, the allegation against the applicant is that
he assaulted the deceased by gunshots on the alleged date of incident
due to prior animosity. Admittedly, the statement was made by the
alleged eye witness after a gap of two days. The same, at this stage,
throws a doubt on credibility of his statement and would be tested after
the entire evidence is led.
15. The applicant is in custody for more than 5 years. In the present
case, the matter is at the stage of prosecution evidence. It is stated
that only 10 witnesses have been examined out of the 44 listed
prosecution witnesses.
16. It is trite that long period of incarceration is a factor to be
considered while deciding the question of bail. The Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713 : AIR
2021 SC 712, has held that once it is obvious that a timely trial would
not be possible, and the accused has suffered incarceration for a
significant period of time, the courts would ordinarily be obligated to
enlarge them on bail.
17. Substantial period of time has been spent by the applicant in
custody. Since the chargesheet in the present case has been filed, the
custody may itself result in the denial of his fundamental right to life
and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India, when the trial is not likely to conclude in near future.
18. The object of jail is to secure the appearance of the accused
during the trial. The object is neither punitive nor preventive and the
deprivation of liberty has been considered as a punishment. However,
appropriate conditions ought to be put to allay the apprehension of the
applicant tampering with the evidence or evading the trial.
19. It is further pointed out that the nominal roll of the applicant
indicates his involvement in other cases pertaining to FIR No. 06/2019
and FIR No. 39807/2018.
20. It is settled law that criminal antecedents of an accused cannot
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 4 Wednesday, January 29, 2025
Printed For: Geetanjali Reddy, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
be one of the sole reasons for refusal of bail. [Prabhakar Tewari v.
Stateof U.P., (2020) 11 SCC 648].
21. Appropriate conditions can be put to allay any apprehension of
the applicant committing another offence of a similar nature while on
bail.
22. Considering the aforesaid discussion, in the interest of upholding
the principles enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,
this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has established a prima
facie case for the grant of bail.
23. In view of the above, the applicant is directed to be released on
bail on furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with two
sureties of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned
Trial Court, on the following conditions:
a. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the
case or tamper with the evidence of the case, in any manner
whatsoever;
b. The applicant shall under no circumstance leave the country
without the permission of the learned Trial Court;
c. The applicant shall appear before the learned Trial Court as and
when directed;
d. The applicant shall provide the address where he shall reside upon
his release, and shall not change the address without informing
the concerned IO/SHO;
e. The applicant shall, upon his release, give his mobile number to
the concerned IO/SHO and shall keep his mobile phone switched
on at all times.
24. In the event of there being any FIR/DD entry/complaint lodged
against the applicant, it would be open to the State to seek redressal
by filing an application seeking cancellation of bail.
25. It is clarified that any observations made in the present order
are for the purpose of deciding the present bail application and should
not influence the outcome of the Trial and also not be taken as an
expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
26. The bail application is allowed in the aforementioned terms.
———
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/
regulation/ circular/ notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be
liable in any manner by reason of any mistake or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice
rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All
disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The authenticity of
this text must be verified from the original source.
