Sanam Dagar Cannot Protract Trial and Then Seek Bail: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has firmly rejected the bail plea of Sanam Dagar, accused of opening fire at a gym in Bawana, ruling that an accused cannot be allowed to protract the trial through their defence counsel and then seek bail citing prolonged incarceration. Justice Girish Kathpalia dismissed the application, cautioning against the misuse of legal process.

Shooting at the Gym: The Case

The prosecution’s case stems from FIR No. 232/2018 registered at Police Station Bawana. Dagar, along with his associates, allegedly entered a gym and fired six to seven rounds, three of which struck the victim, Monu. The entire incident was captured on CCTV footage, which was played in court and purportedly showed Dagar, wearing an orange T-shirt, firing a pistol.

Arguments on Both Sides

Dagar’s counsel, Mr. Parveen Tyagi, advanced two primary grounds for bail: first, that co-accused Sumit @ Kalu had already been granted bail, and second, that Dagar had been in custody for a prolonged period. A further argument was raised that the public witnesses had been examined.

The State, represented by APP Ms. Manjeet Arya, countered that it was the defence counsel who was responsible for the trial delay. She pointed out that despite a specific date fixed by the High Court—September 14, 2026—for cross-examination of the injured Monu, the defence counsel failed to appear. Additionally, Dagar had remained a proclaimed offender for over a year, further stalling proceedings.

Court’s Reasoning: No Parity and Deliberate Delay

Rejecting the parity argument, Justice Kathpalia observed that the role attributed to Dagar was distinct from that of the co-accused. While Dagar’s pistol caused three bullet injuries, the co-accused’s weapon jammed and could not fire. The court noted that this difference in culpability justified differential treatment.

On the issue of prolonged custody, the court expressed concern over a recurring pattern: defence counsel initially protract the trial and later seek bail on the ground of delay. “Such misuse of process has to be understood in its proper perspective,” the judge remarked. The court highlighted that Dagar’s counsel had failed to place trial court ordersheets demonstrating that the defence was not responsible for the delay. Moreover, despite the High Court specifically fixing September 14 for cross-examination, the defence counsel chose to stay away.

CCTV Footage and Unchallenged Testimony

The court also rejected the argument that public witnesses had been examined, noting that the injured Monu’s testimony remained unchallenged. “Further, even the manner in which the alleged offence was committed is clearly depicted in CCTV footage and the same cannot be ignored,” Justice Kathpalia observed.

Key Observations

“It is being observed in a number of cases that initially the defence counsel would somehow protract the trial and thereafter raise the delay in trial as a ground for bail. Such misuse of process has to be understood in its proper perspective.”

“Despite the discussion on these lines recorded in the last order, when the injured Monu appeared before the trial court, the defence counsel opted to stay away from cross examining him.”

Decision

Finding no merit in the bail application, the Delhi High Court dismissed it. The court held that given the gravity of the offence, the clear CCTV evidence, and the defence’s own role in delaying the trial, this was not a fit case for bail at this stage.

The ruling reinforces the principle that an accused cannot benefit from delays they themselves have caused, and that courts will closely scrutinise attempts to manipulate the legal process.