The court affirms that the standard for granting bail in serious offenses depends on the evidence’s strength, particularly scientific evidence, while noting that the hostility of key witnesses cannot solely dictate bail outcomes.

JUDGMENT :

AJAY DIGPAUL, J.

1. The present judgment disposes of two connected applications seeking regular bail filed by the petitioners, Pawan @ Bandar (Bail Application 4209/2024) and Nikhil @ Sonu (Bail Application 3909/2024). Both petitions arise out of FIR No. 295/2022 dated 26.02.2022 registered at Police Station Paschim Vihar West, Delhi, for offences under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereinafter “IPC”] and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 in the case of Pawan @ Bandar and offences under Sections 302/212/34 of the IPC in the case of Nikhil @ Sonu.

2. The case of the prosecution, as set out in the FIR and the chargesheet, is that on 26.02.2022 at about 1:15 a.m., a call was received at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangolpuri, that one Sanjay, had been brought in an unconscious condition. Shortly thereafter, information was conveyed that the said individual had died during treatment. On the basis of this information, FIR No. 295/2022 under Section 302 of the IPC came to be registered.

3. The medico-legal report of the deceased recorded a history of physical assault by a sharp object. Post-mortem examination opined the cause of death as “hemorrhagic shock consequent to abdominal injury,” noting that all injuries were ante-mortem in nature.

4. During investigation, the police recorded the statements of two persons, namely Sagar (PW-3) and Vijay (PW-4), who had taken the deceased to the hospital. Both were cited as eye-witnesses to the incident. Their statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereinafter “Cr.P.C.”] implicated the accused persons.

5. The investigation further revealed that there existed animosity between the deceased Sanjay and accused Pawan @ Bandar on account of differences relating to a common acquaintance. On 25.02.2022, deceased Sanjay was allegedly called to Udyog Nagar, Peeragarhi, by accused Pawan @ Bandar using the phone of PW-3. It is alleged that the deceased reached the jhuggi at Udyog Nagar where Pawan @ Bandar, Nikhil @ Sonu, and others were present. After some time, an altercation ensued. At that stage, Nikhil @ Sonu is alleged to have caught hold of the deceased while Pawan @ Bandar inflicted knife blows upon him.

6. The investigation records that both accused fled the spot on a motorcycle. During further investigation, accused Pawan @ Bandar and Nikhil @ Sonu were arrested on 26.02.2022. A knife alleged to be the weapon of offence was recovered at the instance of Pawan @ Bandar, and the motorcycle allegedly used to flee was recovered at the instance of Nikhil @ Sonu. Both are in judicial custody since the date of their arrest.

7. The chargesheet in the case was filed on 24.05.2022, and charges were framed on 21.02.2023. PW-3 Sagar and PW-4 Vijay, both cited as eye-witnesses, have since been examined before the learned Trial Court and did not support the prosecution case in material particulars, turning hostile.

8. The petitioners moved applications for regular bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, District West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. By separate orders dated 03.10.2024 (in the case of Pawan @ Bandar) and 07.10.2024 (in the case of Nikhil @ Sonu), the said applications were dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the present petitions have been filed.

Submissions on behalf of the petitioners

9. Mr. Pradeep Rana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Pawan @ Bandar along with Mr. Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Nikhil @ Sonu, submit that the present case rests entirely on weak and unreliable evidence, and that the petitioner