Regular bail in serious criminal offences, particularly involving organized criminal conspiracy, is denied when prima facie evidence exists and the risk of tampering with witnesses or obstructing justice is high, regardless of the duration of time already spent in custody.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.RC0502024S0005 dated 01.05.2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 120-B, 34 of IPC and Sections 25, 27 of Arms Act at Police Station CBI/SC-II/Delhi (arising out of Original FIR No.37/2024 dated 26.02.2024 at Police Station Line Par Bahadurgarh, Jhajjar, Haryana).

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 25.02.2024 at about 5:15 PM, an incident of indiscriminate firing took place near Barahi Railway Crossing, Bahadurgarh. The complainant namely Rakesh @ Sanjay son of Shri Diwan Singh, resident of Sector-6, Bahadurgarh, Haryana, who was travelling in a Toyota Fortuner alongwith deceased Nafe Singh Rathee and Jai Kishan Dalal and another injured person, was intercepted by assailants travelling in a Hyundai i-20 car. It has been alleged that 4-5 armed assailants came out of the vehicle and opened fired resulting in the death of Nafe Singh Rathee and Jai Kishan Dalal on the spot while two others sustained serious injuries. The assailants also issued threats to the family members of the deceased.

Initially, FIR No.37 dated 26.02.2024 was registered. Subsequently, the investigation was transferred to the CBI, which registered the instant FIR on 01.05.2024. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner alongwith co-accused persons for offences including murder, attempt to murder and criminal conspiracy.

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question as there is no substantial evidence against him which connect him with the alleged offence. Learned senior counsel has further iterated that the name of the petitioner surfaced only during the course of investigation on the basis of disclosure statement(s) of co-accused which have no evidentiary value in the absence of independent corroboration & cannot form the sole basis for continued incarceration. It has been further submitted that there is no eyewitness account or documentary material which links the petitioner to the commission of the offence. According to learned senior counsel, no recovery of weapon, mobile phone or any incriminating material has been effected from the petitioner nor any recovery has been effected at his instance. Learned senior counsel has emphasized that the allegations against the petitioner is that he has facilitated communication from jail is factually incorrect and is itself contradicted by official records which categorically deny any recovery of mobile phone/device. Assuming, even if the prosecution case is taken to be true, the role ascribed to the petitioner is limited to alleged facilitation or introduction between co-accused persons which does not establish any meeting of minds necessary to constitute criminal conspiracy. It has been further contended that petitioner has been in custody for a substantial period and the trial is likely to take considerable time as several accused are absconding and investigation is still going on. Learned senior counsel has emphasized that continued incarceration of the petitioner in such circumstances would serve no useful purpose. Moreover, the petitioner is not at flight risk and undertakes to abide by any condition(s) that may be imposed by this Court in case he is granted the concession of regular bail. On the strength of these submissions, prayer has been made for grant of regular bail to the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-CBI has vehemently opposed the petition in