Bail should not be punitive; prior offenses alone do not justify denial if the accused poses no flight risk.

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

CRL.M.A. 18080/2025

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The Application stands disposed of.

BAIL APPLN.2255/2025

3. First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘B.N.S.S.’) (old Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ) (hereinafter referred to as Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RITA BAIL APPLN.2255/2025 Page 1 of 7 ‘ Cr.P.C .’) has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner, Sadre Alam @ Chotu, for grant of Regular Bail in FIR No. 850/2024 under Section 109 (1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘B.N.S.’) and Section

25/27 of Arms Act , registered at Police Station Bhalswa Dairy.

4. It is submitted in the Bail Application that the Petitioner is a law- abiding citizen, who has been falsely implicated in this case. He is in judicial custody since 21.10.2024. The Petitioner is a resident of Delhi and is gainfully employed as an e-rickshaw driver/mechanic. He has deep roots in the society and is not a flight risk.

5. His Bail Application was dismissed vide Order dated 04.06.2025 by the Ld. ASJ, without considering crucial facts and circumstances.

6. It is further submitted that present FIR No. 850/2024 was registered on the Complaint of one Aniket @ Tindi, who alleged that the Petitioner had fired at him on the intervening night of 20/21.10.2024 at around 11:00 P.M. near C-5, Mosque, J.J. Colony, Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi. The FIR No. 850/2024, however, was not registered immediately after the incident, but on the next day.

7. It is asserted that the allegations made in the FIR No. 850/2024, are ex facie false and motivated. The Petitioner in fact, is a victim of a brutal assault at the hands of the Complainant’s associates, which led to the registration of Cross-FIR No. 853/2024 under Sections 109 (1) and 3(5) B.N.S. in the same Police Station. This Cross-FIR No. 853/2024 is claimed to have been registered on the basis of the alleged disclosure of the Petitioner recorded during the interrogation in the present FIR and the Police has not acted fairly. He was in fact, attacked with the surgical knife by the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RITA BAIL APPLN.2255/2025 Page 2 of 7 friends of Aniket @ Tindi, who also used wooden planks resulting in serious injuries on his face.

8. The Petitioner was taken to BJRM Hospital by his wife and was referred to LNJP Hospital because of the nature of injuries. MLC was prepared wherein it was recorded that he had a stab wound and other physical injuries. His Statement was recorded after being discharged from the hospital forming the basis of Cross-FIR No. 853/2024.

9. It is submitted that all the Accused persons have already been granted Bail in the said FIR.

10. It is further submitted that the incident giving rise to both the FIRs occurred out of a sudden quarrel and mutual enmity between the two groups. There was no premeditated intent on the part of the Petitioner. The allegations against the Petitioner are retaliatory and aimed at projecting him as a hardened criminal.

11. It is further submitted that the investigations are already complete and the Charge-Sheet has already been filed in the Court. Aniket @ Tindi is the main prosecution witness. However, no independent witness has come forward to corroborate his version. Even the Crime Team Report did not indicate any recovery from the Petitioner.

12. The alleged recovery of country-made pistol with live cartridges has not been affected from the Petitioner. According to the Status Report of the State, the recovery has been made at the instance of opposite party, Accused Imran @ Murad in Cross-FIR No. 853/2024. The claim of the Prosecution that the weapon was used by the Petitioner is baseless and unsubstantiated. The weapon of offence is not link