BAIL APPLN. 2841/2023

Page 1 of 4

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Date of decision: October 04, 2023

+

BAIL APPLN. 2841/2023

SALMAN

..... Applicant

Through:

Mr. Viraj R. Datar, Sr. Advocate

with Mr. Deepak Kohli and Mohd.

Shariq, Advocate

Versus

THE STATE NCT OF DELHI

..... Respondent

Through:

Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for

the State with SI Pramod Kumar,

P.S. Anand Vihar.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

J U D G M E N T

1.

The present application has been preferred by the applicant under

Section 439 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking regular

bail in FIR No.554/2022 dated 29.12.2022 registered under Section(s)

307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 27 of the Arms Act,

1959 at P.S. Anand Vihar, New Delhi.

2.

As per FIR, on the fateful night of 29.12.2022 at around 12:30

AM, three persons including the applicant, entered a scuffle with the

security personnel of B-Wing Club Cross River Mall, when the applicant

allegedly shot at the Event Manager of the aforesaid Club. This led to

registration of the present FIR, whereafter the applicant surrendered

himself during the investigation on 13.04.2022.

3.

Learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the

Digitally Signed

By:SAURABH BANERJEE

Signing Date:06.10.2023

20:13:14

Signature Not Verified

BAIL APPLN. 2841/2023

Page 2 of 4

weapon allegedly used in the commission of the offence was recovered

from bushes of a public place, and that too after more than five months.

He further submits that as per the Medico Legal Certificate (“MLC”), the

complainant had absconded from the Hospital and did not get his X-Ray

done on the date of incident. He also submits that as per the MLC dated

07.06.2023, the complainant sustained simple injury. He further submits

that FSL report is awaited and that too of no assistance or use to the

prosecution as the bullet was not recovered from the body of the

complainant, as it is still lodged inside his body. He lastly submits that

the applicant had voluntarily surrendered.

4.

Notice was issued, Status Report along with State Crime Record

Bureau (“SCRB”) and Nominal Roll was called for.

5.

As per the SCRB, the applicant has been previously named in an

FIR No.104/2019 registered under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.

6.

Learned APP appearing for the State, relying on the Status Report

and opposing the grant of bail to the applicant, submits that the alleged

offence is of a serious/ heinous nature which occurred at a public place

wherein a weapon was discharged in the presence of various witnesses.

He further submits that as per the MLC dated 15.06.2023, the injury of

the complainant was declared dangerous. Qua the conduct of the

applicant, he further submits that the applicant surrendered only when the

proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were initiated against the applicant.

He also submits that there are specific allegations in the FIR against the

applicant and moreover, his presence cannot be doubted at the spot of

alleged incident. He lastly submits that since all the witnesses have not

examined and as the applicant has been involved in a similar case under

Digitally Signed

By:SAURABH BANERJEE

Signing Date:06.10.2023

20:13:14

Signature Not Verified

BAIL APPLN. 2841/2023

Page 3 of 4

the Arms Act in FIR No.104/2019 registered under Section 25 of the

Arms Act, the present is not a fit case for releasing the applicant on bail.

7.

This Court has heard the learned (senior) counsel for the parties

and has also perused the documents on record.

8.

Records reveal that the present FIR is involving heinous offences

committed inside a Mall, a public place having huge footfall. Though as

per MLC dated 07.06.2023, the nature of injury is „simple‟, however, as

per MCL dated 15.06.2023 the injury is „dangerous‟. In any event,

whether the injury was „simple‟ or „dangero