BAIL APPLN. 3972/2021Page 1 of 5

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on : 22.02.2022

% Pronounced on : 19.04.2022

+

BAIL APPLN. 3972/2021

SOURABH KHATRI

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Varun Mudgil, Advocate.

versus

THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

.... Respondent

Through: Dr.M P Singh, APP for the State.

Mr. Vikram Singh and Mr. Yatender

Singh, Advocates for complainant.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR

ORDER

RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J.

1. This petitioner has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439

Cr.P.C seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 70/2020 under Section

302/120B IPC read with Section 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act

registered at Police Station Ranhola.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the present FIR bearing no.

70/2020 was registered on the statement of Sachin Narwal on

27.1.2020. In his statement he alleged that on 26.1.2020 at about 10.30

pm, he was sitting in the office of father of Sahil Lakra with his friends

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001465

BAIL APPLN. 3972/2021Page 2 of 5

Vishal, Sahil, Shrey, Deepak and Jatin. It is further alleged that after

some time Shrey, Deepak, Vishal and Jatin left the place and thereafter

Saurabh Khatri came in to the office. He was asked to sit down but

Saurabh Khatri went away after observing, and thereafter Deepanshu

came to the office and enquired about Saurabh Khatri. It is further

alleged that Sachin, Deepanshu and Sahil sat in the car. Sachin was

driving and Sahil was sitting on front passenger seat while Deepanshu

was sitting in the rear passenger seat. After some distance there was an

argument between Sahil Lakra and Deepanshu, and he said to Sahil

“Tujhe bhut din ho gaye bakbas karte, Tu aise nahi maanega” and

Deepanshu shot Sahil Lakra from behind on his head, and thereafter

Deepanshu ran away. Sachin took Sahil to Balaji Action Hospital.

Deepanshu and Sahil had a quarrel a few months ago. On his statement

a case under Section 307 IPC and Section 25/27 Arms Act was

registered.

3. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that chargesheet

has already been filed in this case, and it is a case of no evidence

against the petitioner. It is further submitted that petitioner was not

present at the spot at the time of alleged incident, and there is nothing

on record to show that petitioner has conspired with the other co-

accused persons who committed murder of one Sahil Lakra. It is

further submitted that petitioner has not been named in the FIR, and he

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001465

BAIL APPLN. 3972/2021Page 3 of 5

is in judicial custody since 27.1.2020 in a case where there is no

evidence against him, and no role has been assigned to him. It is further

submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that trial in this case has not

yet started, and it will take sufficient time to conclude. It is further

submitted that petitioner is not at the flight risk, and since the

chargesheet has been filed, so petitioner is entitled to be released on

bail.

4. On the other hand it is submitted by learned APP that even if the

name of the petitioner is not in the FIR, the FIR cannot be said to be

encyclopedia, and when the matter was further investigated, the role of

the petitioner cropped up. He further submitted that simply because the

chargesheet is filed, it cannot be a ground for release of the petitioner

on bail as the allegations against him are grave and serious in nature.

He further submitted that murder was committed in the intervening

night of 26/27.01.2020 at 12.05 am, and as per the CDR details of the

mobile phone of the petitioner, he was in contact with co-accused

Deepanshu. Learned APP further submitted that as per the CDR details,

the petitioner was active on his mobile