SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 46335

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SHEKH RAFIQ – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI – Respondent
BAIL APPLN.-329/2025



##PAGE1##

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 05.12.2025

Date of Decision:19.12.2025

+ BAIL APPLN. 329/2025

SHEKH RAFIQ .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. I.M. Tripathi and Ms. Utsa

Srivastava, Advs.

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent

Through: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP

for State with Mr. Ashish Mahani, Adv.

Insp Manish Bhati, PS Bhlaswa Dairy

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL

J U D G M E N T

%

1. The present application seeks regular bail under Section 439 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, $~ (now Section 483 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) in connection with FIR

No. 280/2019 dated 22.05.2019, registered at Police Station Bhalswa

Dairy, for offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860, Hereinafter “IPC”

Factual Matrix

2. The case of the prosecution is that FIR No. 280/2019 dated

22.05.2019 was registered in relation to the death of Mukeem @

Akash.

1 Hereinafter “CrPC”

Signature Not Verified

BAIL APPLN. 329/2025 Page 1 of 10

Signed By:ANKITA RAI

Signing Date:19.12.2025

20:36:18

##PAGE2##

3. On 22.05.2019, the complainant Akhtar stated that he saw

several persons namely Ramzan, Raees, Shekh Rafiq (petitioner),

Wahiddul, Dilshad and Rahim @ Anvar @ Sanvar arriving from the

jhuggi side on four motorcycles, and that Rahim @ Anvar @ Sanvar

was allegedly carrying a chapad (knife). It is further the prosecution

case that the said persons were proclaiming that they had killed Akash

and that they would kill anyone who fought with them.

4. The prosecution further states that immediately thereafter the

complainant reached the hall and found Akash lying on the ground in

a blood-stained condition; on attempting to speak to him, he found

that Akash had already died. The complainant thereafter called the

police.

5. Upon the arrival of the police, an inspection of the spot was

conducted and certain exhibits/articles were seized. The deceased was

sent to Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital, where he was declared

“brought dead” vide MLC No. 172735/19 at about 4 PM on

22.05.2019.

6. On 24.05.2019, co-accused Ramzan and Rahim @ Anvar @

Sanvar were arrested on identification of the complainant and their

disclosure statements were recorded.

7. The chargesheet was initially filed in respect of the arrested

accused persons, i.e., Ramzan and Rahim @ Anvar @ Sanvar.

Thereafter, as per the prosecution, the learned Trial Court enquired the

status of investigation qua the other co-accused persons named in the

FIR.

8. During further investigation, the remaining four accused

persons namely Shekh Rafiq (petitioner), Dilshad, Wahiddul and

Signature Not Verified

BAIL APPLN. 329/2025 Page 2 of 10

Signed By:ANKITA RAI

Signing Date:19.12.2025

20:36:18

##PAGE3##

Raees, who did not join the investigation, were subsequently declared

proclaimed offenders on 21.02.2022.

9. Co-accused Dilshad was arrested in another FIR, and later, on

30.05.2023, he was formally arrested in the present case.

10. On 30.08.2022, the present petitioner Shekh Rafiq and co-

accused Raees surrendered before the Court. They were thereafter

formally arrested, and police custody remand was obtained for one

day. A supplementary chargesheet was filed thereafter, and the

petitioner has remained in judicial custody since 31.08.2022.

Submission on behalf of the petitioner

11. Mr. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,

submits that the testimony of PW-3 (Akhtar), who is also the

complainant, discloses material inconsistencies when compared with

the version attributed to him in the FIR, particularly on basic points

such as the number of assailants and the number of motorcycles. It is

urged that these are not minor discrepancies, but contradictions which

bear directly on the prosecution narrative as to who was seen, in what

strength, and in what manner.

12. It is pointed out that while the FIR reflects a categorical version

of six persons being seen together, PW-3 in his testimony before the

learned Trial Court states that he first saw three persons and thereafter

two more, and proceeds

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top