IMPORTANT POINT
The seriousness of the allegations, including murder conspiracy and potential harm to the deceased's family, warranted the dismissal of the petition for anticipatory bail.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Mahajan, J.

1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 445/2023 under Sections 302/120B/34 IPC and Sections 25/27 of Arms Act registered at Police Station Jahangir Puri.

2. The case of the prosecution as borne out from the status report is that on 22.05.2023, information was received at Police Station Jahangir Puri regarding MLC No. 227681/23 of Bijender Yadav S/o Lt. Kartar Singh R/o Bhalaswa Village, Delhi. On the MLC, the doctor mentioned "Alleged history of gunshot injury" & declared the deceased as `brought dead'. The police reached and inspected the crime spot.

3. Thereafter, statement of eye-witness Sukhbir was recorded wherein he stated that on 22.05.2023, there was a Shivling Sthapna in Shiv Mandir near Meetha Kuan and bhandara was being organised there. Sukhbir along with Bijender Yadav (the deceased), Virender@Billu and other public persons of the village, was present at the spot. At about 02:50 pm, Sanju Yadav, Sandeep Panwar, Jay Singh and Suraj came there. Sanju shot Bijender Yadav in his head and pumped bullets in his body. Sandeep Panwar and Jay Singh also fired on Bijender Yadav, hence, the present case was registered.

4. On 26.05.2023, accused Sanju, Sandeep Panwar and Jay Singh were arrested. During the course of investigation, it transpired that Bharat Yadav (the petitioner herein) had previous enmity with the deceased Bijender Yadav as the petitioner thought that on 12.04.2023 one person namely Suresh, fired at his cousin brother at the instance of the deceased. Therefore, the petitioner hatched a conspiracy with his brothers to eliminate the deceased. For the said purpose, fire arms were arranged from his friend namely Amit@Kale, who along with the petitioner helped the assailants to escape from Delhi.

5. Mr. Pramod Kumar Dubey, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR. Even the four eye-witnesses namely, Sukhbir (complainant), Radheshyam, Gajraj Yadav and Virender Yadav, whose statements were recorded under Section 161 CrPC have not alleged that the petitioner was seen at or around the alleged place of incident nor have they stated anything in respect of the alleged rivalry between the petitioner and the deceased.

6. He submits that co-accused namely, Sanju and Sandeep were arrested on 25.05.2023 in kalandra under Section 41(1)(ba) CrPC recorded vide DD no. 194A, on the basis of secret information in respect of the commission of offence pertaining to the present FIR. In their disclosure statement the said co-accused gave their account of the alleged incident, but did not name the petitioner in any manner. Subsequently, a second disclosure statement of the co-accused Jay Singh, Sanju and Sandeep was recorded in which they made a departure from their earlier statement and disclosed that the petitioner was involved in the planning of deceased's murder. He submits that on the basis of second disclosure statement of the said co-accused, Section 120-B IPC was invoked by the prosecution.

7. He submits that total 04 eye witnesses of the alleged incident namely Sukhbir (the complainant), Radheyshyam, Gajraj Yadav and Virender Yadav were examined, and all are residents of the same area, yet they have not made any statement with regard to the alleged rivalry between the petitioner and the deceased.

8. He submits that it is a settled position of law that the disclosure statement of co-accused cannot be relied upon. According to Mr. Dubey there is no substantive evidence to show the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged murder. He submits that there is no evidence to indicate the time or the beginning and end of the conspiracy except the disclosure statement of the co-accused, which cannot be legally relied upon.

9. He submits that even in the disclosure statements of th