The court emphasized the right to a speedy trial and the presumption of innocence, indicating that pre-trial detention based on unexamined evidence violates constitutional rights.

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.169 dated 13.04.2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 148 , 149, 285, 302 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) (Sections 201, 120 of IPC added later on) and Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act , 1959 (for short ‘ Arms Act ’), at Police Station City Sohna, District Gurugram.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that on 12.04.2023 at about 8.00 AM, complainant (Lalit) alongwith his cousin brother Gyanender Bhola (deceased), in white swift car, came to Neta Farm House at Sohna- Palwal Road. At about 5.40 PM, when both of them came out of the farm house for smoking, then three vehicles, i.e., one black scorpio, one white Venue and one white Baleno came, and 15-20 persons alighted from the said vehicles. They encircled the complainant and his cousin brother. Two boys put pistols upon the complainant and made him to sit on the ground. Other co-accused, namely, Bharat and Kapil were armed with axes, Manish and Rohit were armed with hammers, Ajay was having pistol, Lalit alias Lalti, Rajesh and Azad were having iron rods, and some other 8-10 unknown persons gave fatal injuries to his cousin brother Gyanender Bhola, who succumbed to his injuries. Later on, the petitioner was also arrested in this case and upon his disclosure, mobile phone marka Apple iPhone was allegedly recovered from him.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 19.06.2024. Learned counsel has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner is not named in the FIR in question and only one phone has allegedly been recovered from him. Learned counsel has further submitted that, assuming arguendo, the prosecution version is taken to be correct, the role ascribed to the petitioner is that of conspiracy only. Learned counsel also argued that the trial is procrastinating and the same is not on account of folly of the petitioner. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record the custody certificate dated 30.09.2025, in the Court today, which is taken on record.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed grant of regular bail to the petitioner by arguing that there are serious and direct allegations against the petitioner. He further iterated that in case, the petitioner is released on bail, there is all likelihood that he may intimidate the witnesses as also flee from the process of justice. On the strength of these submissions, dismissal of the petition is entreated for.

6. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

7. The petitioner was arrested on 19.06.2024 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan qua the petitioner has been presented on 27.08.2024. Total 61 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out of which, only 06 have been examined fully and 01 (complainant) has been examined in part till date. It is thus, indubitable that conclusion of the trial will take its own time. T