The court ruled that the gravity of the offence alone is insufficient for denying bail, with due regard to the evidence presented.

SHALINDER KAUR, J. (ORAL)

1. By way of the present petition under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code , 1973 (CrPC), the petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in FIR No. 355 of 2020 dated 20.07.2020 registered for offences under Section 302 /34 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 (IPC) at Police Station Krishna Nagar, Delhi.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 20.07.2020, information was received at Police Station Krishna Nagar vide DD No. 5A regarding a quarrel at H No. 662, Jheel Khuranja, Geeta Colony, Delhi. Pursuant thereto, the Investigating Officer proceeded to the spot, where a pool of blood was found and the injured had already been taken to SDN Hospital vide MLC No. 1982/20, and was subsequently referred to Safdarjung Hospital for treatment. However, at Safdarjung Hospital, he was declared brought dead. The crime team inspected the spot, which is 666A, Jheel Khuranja, Geeta Colony.

3. The case was registered on the basis of the statement of the wife of the deceased, who alleged that while she was accompanying her husband to the hospital prior to his death, he disclosed to her that he had been physically assaulted and stabbed with a knife by Sandeep, Chhavi, and their associates. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested on 20.07.2020.

4. During the course of investigation, blood, blood-stained earth, earth control, blood-stained jeans and shoes of the deceased were seized from the scene of the crime through a seizure memo. Additionally, one DVR was also seized, in which the entire incident of the murder was captured from 11:05 PM to 11:10 PM.

5. The Charge-Sheet in the present case has been filed under Sections 302 /34 of the IPC against all the accused persons, namely, Naveen @ Sandeep (the petitioner herein), Nitin Kapoor @ Chhavi, Hemant @ Sarvan, and Gaurav @ Lefty Garav. The role assigned to the petitioner is that he inflicted the stab injury on the victim with a knife. The weapon of offence, being a blood-stained knife, was recovered at the instance of the petitioner.

6. The petitioner preferred his first regular bail application before the learned Trial Court which was dismissed vide its Order dated 15.05.2024.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only evidence on record against the petitioner is the statements of PW1, PW4, PW6, and PW8, and that none of these witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. He further submits that PW1 failed to identify the petitioner as one of the assailants in the CCTV footage. Moreover, upon being shown the accused persons, PW1 stated that she does not know them. He also contends that none of the public witnesses show the complicity of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged crime.

8. The learned counsel further submits that 17 out of 30 witnesses have been examined so far, and all the material public witnesses have already been examined. More so, only formal witnesses now remain to be examined and nothing incriminating has emerged against the petitioner in the course of the trial.

9. He submits that the learned Trial Court rejected the bail application of the petitioner solely on the ground that the allegations against the petitioner are grave and serious in nature and failed to consider that it is trite law that the gravity of the offence cannot be the sole basis for the refusal of bail.

10. He further submits that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, and the petitioner has been in custody since 20.07.2020, i.e., a period of nearly five years. Additionally, he submits that one of the co-accused, namely Gaurav @ Lefty, has already been granted r