Sonu vs State Nct Of Delhi

Girish Kathpalia, J

The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 931/2023 of Police Station Sarai Rohilla for offence under Section 307/195A/506/120B/34 IPC & Section 83 of JJ Act.

1.1 This bail application came up for the first hearing on 07.04.2025 before the predecessor bench and thereafter continued getting adjourned before different benches. Along with 179 such old pending bail applications, this application also was transferred to this bench.

1.2 Today is the first hearing before me. I have heard learned counsel for accused/applicant as well as learned APP for State. As regards the IO of the case,  as  discussed hereafter, in this case  also,  the  police officials  present in the courtroom tried their best to mislead this Court or at least create confusion so that the matter gets again adjourned. There are three police officials present in this matter, none of whom have briefed the learned prosecutor before commencement of the hearing. Their conduct is described in paragraph 8 of this order.

Broadly  speaking, allegation against the  accused/applicant is  that he along  with co-accused  persons threatened  an  eye  witness  of  a  murder  case by  way of the co-accused persons assaulting the said eye witness namely, Iqbal Ahmad at his shop. The accused/applicant was not present at the time of the said assault, as per prosecution. The accused/applicant was roped in on the basis of disclosure statements of the alleged assailants.

Learned counsel for accused/applicant contends that there is no evidence  against  the  accused/applicant  apart  from  the  disclosure  statement, which is not admissible evidence against him. It is further submitted that accused/applicant is in jail since 13.01.2024.

Learned APP for State opposes the bail application on instructions of the said three police officials present in court, alleging that at the time of arrest  of  the  accused/applicant, his mobile phone was  seized  and  the  same was found to contain four  videos of reconnaissance of the Tis Hazari Court Complex, which shows that the accused/applicant and his associates were planning to assail the eye witness in court complex and that is a serious issue.

It is pointed out by learned counsel for accused/applicant that after forensic examination, the FSL report of the said mobile phone reported that no video/picture was found from the data retrieved from that mobile phone.

Since no such video of the alleged reconnaissance was found by FSL in the mobile phone of the accused/applicant, learned prosecutor in all fairness admits that there is no cogent evidence to keep the accused/applicant in jail.

On this aspect, SI Manoj Kumar submits that he had personally seized the  said  mobile  phone  and  had  even  examined  the  said  four  videos,  but  he did not  retain mirror image  thereof. Not  only  this, the FSL report is dated 22.08.2025,  but  admittedly,  till  date  the  investigating  agency has  not  made even a whisper that the FSL report is incorrect.

Further, as mentioned above, three police officials have appeared today to oppose this bail application. Initially, when the FSL report was pointed out, SI Manoj Kumar stated that he investigated the case only  till arrest of the accused/applicant. At that stage, SI Data Ram came forward and  stated  that  it  is  he  who  is  the  IO  as  he  filed  the  chargesheet.  On  being called upon to explain as to whether any communication was sent to the FSL, both of them stated that the IO is on his way with the police file. Immediately thereafter, SI Lalit Kumar came with the file but stated that he is not the IO. There is complete confusion at the prosecution side as to who is the IO of the case.

8.1 At  this  stage,  learned  APP  for  State,  on  instructions  of  SI  Data  Ram submits that  there are two more IOs, namely  SI Vipin, who filed the FSL report and SI Devender, who filed the Call Detail Report. But neither of those IOs have appeared. To say the least, this is not how liberty of an individual should be dealt with.

Considering the above circumstances, I do not find any reason to deprive further liberty to the accused/applicant. Therefore, the bail application is allowed and accused/applicant is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

A copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the concerned Jail Superintendent for informing the accused/applicant. As requested by learned APP for State, a copy of this order be also sent to the DCP (Legal), Delhi Police through the Standing Counsel for information and necessary action.