$~9

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of Decision: December 16, 2025 + BAIL APPLN. 3867/2025 & CRL.M.A. 30155/2025,

CRL.M.A. 30156/2025

NASIR .....Applicant

Through: Mr. Mutiur Rehman, Mr.

Nadeem Khan, Mr. Ayush Chaudhary and Ms.

Shaheen, Advs.

versus

STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri,

APP for the State with Ms. Divya Yadav, Adv. with Insp. Deepak Kumar, PS

New Usmanpur.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)

1. By the present bail application, the applicant seeks regular bail in FIR No. 66/2019 dated 25.01.2019, registered at Police Station New Usmanpur, for offences under Sections 302/201 of

the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’).

2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 23.01.2019, information was received from SHO City Kotwali, Bijnor, U.P., vide DD No. 47 at Police Station New Usmanpur, Delhi, wherein it was informed that vide DD No. 8A, dated 24.07.2018, PS New Usmanpur, one Sanjay Mishra had lodged a missing complaint of his wife Soni @ Nidhi @ Ikra. It was further alleged that, the victim has been strangulated by one Intzar, who also had brought

the dead body to Bijnor for cremation.

3. Consequently, on 24.01.2019, Sh. Sanjay Mishra the husband of deceased identified the dead body of his wife and as per the post-mortem report, the cause of death was stated as "Ashphaxia due to Antemortem strangulation".

4. The main accused/Intzar was arrested on 25.01.2019, and during interrogation, he disclosed that on 22.01.2019 he had strangulated the deceased, with the help of his brother- Nazir/Applicant herein. He further disclosed that he had brought the dead body to Bijnor for performing her last rites.

5. It is alleged that the CCTV footage of the area near the house of the accused/Intzar and Applicant shows the main accused/Intzar carrying the dead body of the victim and the Applicant following him.

6. The Applicant was arrested on 28.01.2019, who refused his Test Identification Parade proceedings and during police remand, at his instance, one muffler and a black cap, used by main accused/Intzar for covering his face and head, were recovered.

7. The chargesheet was filed under sections 302/34/201 of the IPC against the main accused and the Applicant.

8. The learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case solely on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused.

9. He submits that even if the evidence as relied upon and the case of the prosecution are taken at the highest, the only role to be attributed to the Applicant would be of helping his brother in hiding the body of the deceased.

10. He submits that even as per the CCTV footage, without prejudice to the submissions that the Applicant is not involved in the present case, the person alleged to be the Applicant is merely seen walking behind the main accused, who was allegedly carrying the dead body.

11. He further submits that no motive can be attributed on the Applicant.

12. Per Contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that the circumstantial evidence in the present case clearly points towards the guilt of the Applicant in abetting the murder of the victim. He submits that the co-accused clearly disclosed that the Applicant was holding the victim’s hand while he strangulated her.

13. He further submits that the CDRs reveal that the main accused and the Applicant were simultaneously at Delhi and then at Bijnor on the date of the incident.

14. Submissions heard and the material placed on record perused.

15. While considering the application for bail, the Court has to consider the nature of the offence, severity of the punishment and prima facie involvement of the accused. The Court, at this stage, is not required to enter into the detailed analysis of the evidence to establish beyond the reasonable doubt whether the accused has committed offence. It is essential to remember that bail is not a determination of guilt but a safeguard ensurin