Bablu vs State Of Nct Of Delhi

Girish Kathpalia, J

The accused/applicant seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 857/2025 of PS Burari for offence under Section 109(1)/3(5) BNS and Section 25/27 Arms Act.

Broadly speaking,  the  allegation  against  the  accused/applicant  is  that by way of revenge,  the accused/applicant and  his  three  associates  assaulted the victim. The  present accused/applicant  and  Child  in Conflict with Law, namely X allegedly caught  hold  of  the victim,  after which another  Child in Conflict with Law namely Y inflicted knife blow on neck of the victim and they started dragging the victim intending to kill him at some deserted place and at that stage, mother of the victim intervened, so the co-accused Dhiresh took out a pistol and fired at the victim but the shot misfired and hit at a tea vendor present at the spot. Thereafter all four accused persons fled away.

Learned counsel for accused/applicant argues that no custodial interrogation is required, so he deserves to be granted anticipatory bail. It is also contended that the accused/applicant was not even present at the time of the alleged incident and that he is soft target because of earlier dispute between the two groups. It is also contended that no cartridge was recovered from  the spot, which  belies the alleged incident. It is also  contended that there is no CCTV footage and there is no public witness.

On the other hand, learned prosecutor assisted by IO SI Manish strongly opposes the anticipatory bail application. The IO submits that from the  spot,  empty cartridge  was  also recovered and in any case,  the MLCs  of both injured persons also corroborate the statement of the first informant. It is also submitted that investigation is continuing as regards presence of CCTV and any public witness, if available.

The IO has shown me MLCs of both injured persons. Fortunately, both of them survived.

The requirement of custodial interrogation is not the only factor to be kept in mind while  dealing with anticipatory bail  application. The nature of offence  as  well  as  the  manner  in  which  it  was  committed  also  are  relevant factors.  As  mentioned above,  here is  a  case  where four  persons  assault  one individual, who is given knife blow on neck, which could be fatal and thereafter a  bullet is fired at him, but it misses the  target and hits another person present in the vicinity. Grant of anticipatory bail in such cases of complete lawlessness would send extremely wrong signals to the society.

Therefore, I do not find it a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The anticipatory bail application and other accompanying applications are dismissed.