Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 5147
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Ajay Digpaul, J
VIJAY UJJWAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI – Respondent
BAIL APPLN. 3064/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Sandeep Tyagi, Mr. Ashish Goyal
For the Respondents: Mr. Raghuinder Verma, Mr. Aditya Vikram Singh
Bail granted due to insufficient evidence linking petitioner to serious crime, emphasizing rights against prolonged detention without direct culpability.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Bail application seeking regular bail based on the limited role attributed to the petitioner under Section 25(8) of the Arms Act; the petitioner not being named in the FIR and absence of eyewitness or direct evidence linking him to arms procurement. (Paras 2-30)
(B) Prosecution’s reliance on circumstantial evidence - The evidentiary weight of bank transactions and CDR data deemed insufficient to sustain a charge at this stage. Findings: Continued incarceration lacks justification given the applicant's limited role and absence of direct evidence.
Issues: The court assesses the sufficiency of evidence against the petitioner and the appropriateness of continued detention pending trial.
Ratio Decidendi: Detention without sufficient evidence violates principles of justice and individual rights.
Result: Bail application allowed with specified conditions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts related to bail application and charges. (Para 1 , 2) |
J U D G M E N T
%
1. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant/petitioner/accused seeking regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023, [$~] in case arising out of FIR No.
532/2023.
Factual Matrix
2. The facts, in brief, are that the FIR in question was registered on 05.07.2023, wherein the complainant alleged that her mother, Smt. Poonam Mittal, was shot dead by Ankit Kaushik, a person known to the family.
Signature Not Verified
3. It was alleged that Ankit came to the complainant’s residence and shot at the deceased with a firearm, resulting in her death. Upon investigation, Ankit Kaushik was apprehended and during his custodial interrogation, he disclosed that the firearm used in the incident had been procured from Village Hazurabad Garhi, District Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh, with the assistance of co-accused Sagar Ujjwal and Vijay Ujjwal, the present petitioner.
4. As per the prosecution, the petitioner facilitated the procurement of the weapon by coordinating with suppliers in Uttar Pradesh. It is further alleged that a sum of ₹44,000/- was transferred by Ankit to the petitioner through PayTM on 10.05.2023, and that further cash payments (₹12,500/- +
₹8,000/-) were subsequently made for magazines and cartridges.
5. The CDR location data is stated to have shown the petitioner in the company of the co-accused on the relevant dates. The charge-sheet has been filed, and the charges were framed against the petitioner on 18.07.2024 under Section 25 (8) of the Arms Act alone, and not under Section 302 of the IPC. The petitioner has been in custody since 11.07.2023, and the trial is at the stage of recording of prosecution evidence. A supplementary chargesheet was also filed on 05.04.2025. Submissions on behalf of the petitioner
6. Mr. Sandeep Tyagi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the role attributed to the petitioner is limited and distinguishable from the principal accused Ankit Kaushik, who is alleged to have committed the actual shooting.
Signature Not Verified
7. It is argued that the petitioner is not named in the FIR, and there is no eyewitness or direct evidence linking him to the procurement or supply of arms.
8. The case record itself shows that charges were framed vide order dated 18.07.2024 against the principal accused Ankit under Sections 302/506 of the IPC and 25/27 of the Arms Act , whereas against Vijay (petitioner), charge was framed only under Section 25(8) of the Arms Act . Thus, the role attributed to the petitioner is distinct and limited to that of the main accused Ankit.
9. The entire prosecution case against the petitioner is stated to rest on the disclosure statements of co-accused, particularly Ankit and Sagar, and on a money transfer of ₹44,000/- through PayTM, which the petitioner contends is insufficient to establish criminality, especially in the absence of any recovery of the firearm or ammunition from him.
10. With regard to the PayTM transaction of ₹44,000/-, it is submitted that the mere existence of a money transfer, without a demonstrated nexus to the alleged arms supply or any consequential recovery, cannot, by itself, sustain a charge under the Arms Act . It is contended that there is no material to show what the money was used for, and the prosecution has failed to establish any live link between the transaction and the weapon allegedly used.
11. It is further contended that the prosecution has failed to produce any material witness or independent corroboration to the disclosures. The petitioner also relies on the fact that there is a significant time gap of nearly two months between the alleged transaction (10.05.2023) and the actual incident (05.07.2023), which undermines the causal nexus.
Signature Not Verified
12. The petitioner is aged 25 years, has no prior criminal antecedents, and his conduct in jail has be
