$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision:8^th October, 2025 + BAIL APPLN. 2800/2025 SAHIB S/o Sh. Mohd Gufran .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Mohd. Shamikh and Mr. Absar Ahmed, Advocates.

versus STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for the State.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA J U D G M E N T (oral)

1. First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘B.N.S.S.’) has been filed on behalf of the Applicant/Sahib for grant of Regular Bail in Case FIR No. 338/2024 under Section 103(1)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘B.N.S’) of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Jafrabad, Delhi.

2. The Applicant submits that he was arrested on 15.08.2024 and is in Judicial Custody since then.

3. The case of the Prosecution is that on 13.08.2024, a PCR call was received, which was registered as GD No. 80A at 04:46 p.m. regarding murder by two boys. The Police reached the spot and found that the injured person has been taken to the hospital and no eye witness was available on the spot. The MLC of the deceased was collected and the present FIR was registered. The Bail is sought on the ground that there is no evidence against the Petitioner. The GD No. 80A was registered regardingthe murder by two persons. The said murder took place outside the house of the deceased but surprisingly, the deceased was taken to the Hospital by the neighbours and not by the family members.

4. As per the prosecution case, there was no eye witness found either on the spot or at the hospital where the deceased had been taken. The wife of the deceased visited the Police Station on 14.08.2024, to verify the status of murder case of her husband and was shown CCTV footage of two boys where she identified them as Accused/Suhail, who had killed her husband by firing a pistol at the deceased, and the other person was identified as Mehran, who was allegedly accompanying the Accused Suhail, at the time of the murder.

5. Admittedly, the Applicant was not present at the spot when the murder of the deceased, Rizwan, took place. The wife of the deceased nowhere claimed the presence of the Applicant at the spot at the time of the murder. The Applicant was arrested on 15.08.2024 and allegedly he made a Disclosure Statement pertaining to this case and was formally arrested.

6. It is submitted that thecustody of the Applicant is no more required and the Charge-Sheet has already been filed. There was no recovery affected from the Applicant or at his instance as he has nothing to do with the case.

There is no evidence to connect him with the present offence.

7. The Applicant had applied for Bail before the learned Trial Court, which has been dismissed vide Order dated 04.04.2025.

8. The Applicant further states that he was just about 18 years of age when he was falsely implicated in this case. His entire career has been put to stake. He has clean antecedents and has never been involved in any case and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind the bars. There is no likelihood of his absconding or of tempering with the evidence if released on bail.

9. Hence, the prayer is made that he may be granted Regular Bail.

10. Though, no formal Status Report has been filed in the present case on behalf of the State but a Reply had been filed before the learned Trial Court wherein it was submitted that the deceased was killed by two persons outside his house by fire shots.

11. The deceased, Rizwan, was declared brought dead by the doctor, on account of the gunshot injuries. The investigations were duly carried out. On checking the CCTV footage, three boys were found running away from the spot, who were identified by Head Constable Sohanveer as Mehran, Suhail and the Applicant, namely Sahib. During the course of the investigation, the postmortem of the deceased was conducted.

12. Furthermore, as per the CCTV footage, Sa