J U D G M E N T

1. This is a bail application seeking grant of regular bail by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being accused in FIR No.609/2022 dated 06.07.2022 registered at P.S.: Keshav Puram, Delhi under Sections 506/341/308/120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

2. As per the FIR, Mr. Karan Yadav, a co-accused of applicant residing nearby the complainant, was frequently engaging in fights with residents of the locality. Around one month before the filing of the FIR, the applicant and another person, on instructions of Mr. Karan Yadav, threatened the complainant to remove his car from where it was parked. Later, the said Mr. Karan Yadav, applicant and another person threatened the complainant of dire consequences in case he did not remove his car. On 05.07.2022, the complainant first saw the applicant near his house around 03:00 PM and then, around 06:00 PM when he was parking his car, 3-4 boys got down from a Ford Endeavour bearing registration number HR 26 DS 0010 and started beating the complainant incessantly.

3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been in custody since 18.04.2023. He further contends that the FIR has been registered on incoherent and frivolous facts.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that the subsequent addition of Section 308, IPC is not well-founded, as the medico-legal report by the medical practitioner is alleged to be made under influence. He also submits that the mother and the brother of the complainant hold influential positions, and by use of this influence, they have obtained a favourable medico-legal report. He further submits that the applicant has not been named as an assailant in the FIR and the CCTV footage do not show usage of any weapons as alleged in the FIR. He also submits that the applicant is neither absconding nor evading arrest. He lastly submits that as the investigation has been completed and as the chargesheet has also been filed, the applicant is no longer required to be kept in judicial custody.

5. Notice was issued and Status Report was filed. The Nominal Roll of the applicant was also called for.

6. The State in its Status Report has opposed the release of the applicant on bail on the ground that one of the co-accused is still absconding and further that the applicant would prejudice the investigation, if released on bail. Learned APP for the State, drawing attention of this Court to the Call Detail Records (‘CDR’) of the applicant, submits that since the same matches with the co-accused, it shows that the applicant was present at the place of alleged incident. He further submits that the counsel for the applicant withdrew his bail application from the Sessions Court on

28.04.2023.

7. The Nominal Roll shows that there are no instances of previous involvement/cases, in addition to the present FIR, pending against the applicant, the overall jail conduct of the applicant is satisfactory and there is no report of misconduct during interim/ bail/ parole.

8. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the applicant and also the learned APP for the State and perused the relevant documents on record. The above narration shows that the investigation is complete and the chargesheet has also been filed. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the applicant is no longer required to be kept in judicial custody. Considering the said position, there is a likelihood that the trial in the matter will take a considerable period of time, which in the opinion of this Court, means that the applicant will be behind the bars during the said period and will be against the interests of the applicant. The Nominal Roll as aforesaid clearly shows that the overall jail conduct of the applicant is satisfactory and there is no report of misconduct during interim/ bail/ parole is another reason for this Court to release the applicant on regular bail. The applicant has never absconded nor has evaded arrest.

9. In view