Limited role in facilitating firearm supply without direct involvement in a homicide weakens the case for pre-trial detention, justifying bail despite serious charges.

JUDGMENT :

AJAY DIGPAUL, J.

1. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant/petitioner/accused seeking regular bail under Section 483 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [hereinafter “BNSS”] in case arising out of FIR No. 532/2023.

Factual Matrix

2. FIR No. 532/2023, at PS - Sarai Rohilla, was registered on 05.07.2023 for offences under Sections 302/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereinafter “IPC”] and Sections 25/27/25(8) of the Arms Act, 1959 [Hereinafter “IPC”] in respect of the fatal shooting of the deceased Smt. Poonam Mittal at the residence of the complainant, who is the deceased’s daughter.

3. The genesis of the offence is traced to a dispute between the complainant and one Ankit Kaushik/main accused. Ankit allegedly went to the complainant’s house and opened fire, causing fatal injuries to her mother.

4. During the course of investigation, Ankit Kaushik, in his supplementary disclosure statement, disclosed that he procured the country- made pistol used in the offence through Vijay Ujjwal and the present applicant Sagar Ujjwal @ Udham.

5. It is alleged that in early May 2023, Ankit and one Naveen visited Village Hazurabad Garhi, District Baghpat, U.P., where they met Vijay and Sagar. On 10.05.2023, Ankit purportedly transferred Rs. 44,000/- via PayTM to Vijay and also paid Rs. 12,500/- in cash to the petitioner Sagar. Two magazines and cartridges were allegedly handed over by Vijay and the applicant to Ankit. A further payment of Rs. 8,000/- was allegedly made in cash 8–10 days later for 20 cartridges.

6. The petitioner was arrested on 10.07.2023 from Village Hazurabad Garhi. He has remained in custody since 11.07.2023 and is presently lodged at Central Jail No.13, Mandoli. The charge-sheet was filed under Sections 302/506 of the IPC and Sections 25/27/25(8) of the Arms Act. However, charges were framed against the petitioner only under Section 25(8) Arms Act vide charge order dated 18.07.2024. The petitioner has now been in custody for over 2 years. A supplementary charge-sheet was filed on 05.04.2025.

7. The record reflects that the prosecution case qua the petitioner is primarily based on (i) disclosure statements of prime accused, (ii) alleged money trail into co-accused Vijay’s bank account and (iii) CDR and location records showing the petitioner in the vicinity on 10.05.2023.

8. As on 24.05.2025, the trial was at the stage of prosecution evidence. The petitioner is 28 years old, has no prior criminal antecedents, and as per the nominal roll dated 10.07.2025, his jail conduct is recorded as satisfactory.

Submissions on behalf of the petitioner

9. Ms. Anu Narula, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the only role ascribed to the petitioner is that of supplying a weapon, without any direct involvement in the actual commission of the crime.

10. It is argued that the petitioner is not named in the FIR, and there is no eyewitness or direct evidence linking him to the procurement or supply of arms.

11. The case record itself shows that charges were framed vide order dated 18.07.2024 against the prime accused Ankit under Sections 302/506 of the IPC and 25/27 of the Arms Act, whereas against Sagar (petitioner) only under Section 25(8) of the Arms Act. Thus, the role attributed to the petitioner is distinct and limited to that of the main accused Ankit.

12. The alleged act of supply took place nearly two months prior to the incident (i.e., in May 2023), whereas the offence occurred on 05.07.2023. There is no call between the co-accused with present petitioner as per CDR till 10.05.2023.Thus, it is argued that t