Bail must be granted judiciously, considering the gravity of the offense, prima facie evidence, and the risk of witness tampering or escaping justice.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 483(3) and Section 528 - Bail cancellation - The petitioner sought to cancel bail granted under Section 302 IPC due to concerns of potential misconduct and suppression of evidence - The trial court's reasoning for bail was inadequately supported by case facts. (Paras 1, 24-33)

(B) Bail Considerations - The court emphasized the need for considering prima facie evidence and the seriousness of charges while granting bail - Judicial discretion must be exercised judiciously rather than mechanically. (Paras 26-30)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, father of deceased Saksham Gupta, alleged murder by respondent Mayank Antil following a missing persons report that led to the discovery of his son's body. The prosecution indicated strong circumstantial evidence indicating respondent's involvement, including CCTV footage and the recovery of personal effects.

Findings of Court:
The high court found that the lower court failed to apply necessary legal standards in assessing grant of bail for a serious charge such as murder and has set aside the bail order pending re-evaluation.

Issues: The main issue concerned whether the trial court appropriately considered prima facie evidence and significant circumstances when granting bail in a murder case.

Ratio Decidendi: The High Court ruled that bail in serious offenses must consider all pertinent facts, and a lack of indication of prima facie case or inappropriate reasoning by the lower court invalidated the bail grant.

Result: Petition allowed; impugned order set aside.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's claim regarding bail cancellation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. arguments for petitioner's bail cancellation request. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. respondent's defense against bail cancellation. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
4. court's analysis of bail application process. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 30 , 31 , 32)
5. final order on petition regarding bail. (Para 33 , 34 , 35)

JUDGMENT :

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 483(3) read with Section 528 BNSS against the impugned order dated 21.09.2024 passed by the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-03, North-West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi whereby the respondent no.2 was admitted to regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 330/2021 under Section 302 IPC registered at Police Station Maurya Enclave. Consequently, a prayer has been made to cancel the bail granted to the respondent no.2.

2. The petitioner is the father of the deceased, who as per the prosecution version, was allegedly killed by the accused/respondent no.2 namely, Mayank Antil on 21.04.2021.

3. The case of the prosecution as borne out from the Status Report is that on 25.04.2021, an information vide DD No.13A at 06:36 a.m. was received at Police Station Maurya Enclave regarding a dead body in SU Park, Pitampura, Delhi.

4. On receipt of information, ASI Sunil (I.O.) along with staff reached at the spot where a male dead body was found in decomposed condition. On inspection of the dead body, injury mark on forehead and right hand was present and one piece of cloth was found tied around the neck of the deceased, who was identified as Saksham Gupta, aged about 18 years son of Maneesh Gupta (petitioner herein).

5. The petitioner had previously lodged a missing report of his son namely, Saksham Gupta vide DD No.48A dated 21.04.2021 at Police Station Maurya Enclave. On the statement of petitioner/complainant, the present case was registered. The petitioner in his statement to the police stated that his son Saksham Gupta went to meet his friend Mayank Antil. He also stated that he checked the Instagram ID ‘Saksham-Baniya’ of his son Saksham and the last chat was done with account – ‘hiroisthe’ on 21.04.2021. In the said chat, a mobile no. 9625380043 was mentioned and as per the chat dated 20.04.2021, the other side person had called Saksham to Park Hut of SU Block, Pitampura, Delhi.

6. The petitioner further stated that on 21.04.2024 his wife was also informed by their son Saksham Gupta that he is going to meet his friend Mayank Antil/accused. The petitioner, in effect, leveled allegations of murder of his son Saksham by the respondent no.2/Mayank Antil.

7. Mr. Maninder Singh, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Additional Sessions Judge (for short ‘ASJ’) while granting bail to the petitioner vide impugned order dated 21.09.2024 has ignored the relevant material and evidence on record.

8. Elaborating on his submission, he submits that the incriminating material is available in the form of CCTV visuals and as per the learned Trial Court’s observations made during the examination of PW-1, the boy who is seen in the CCTV visuals has a small tattoo under his left ear and the accused also has a similar tattoo at the same spot.

9. He contends that the blood stained bricks were recovered from the crime scene at the instance of the respondent no.2. Besides recovery of Samsung mobile phone of deceased, the Realme Earpods of the deceased were also recovered from the possession of the respondent no.2. The last location of mobile of the deceased and the respondent no.2/accused were found matching with the place of incident on the date of incident i.e.21.04.2021.

10. He further contends that out of 39 prosecution witnesses, only 08 witnesses have been examined, of which 02 witnesses have turned hostile, who have been influenced by the respondent no.2/accused.

11. He submits that the prosecution witness Manmeet