High CourtsSingle Bench(2025) 09 DEL CK 2207

Sachin Pal vs The State NCT Of Delhi

Delhi High Court, New Delhi · Decided on 3 September 2025

HON’BLE JUDGES
Girish Kathpalia, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
BAIL APPLN. 1614/2025

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 331 words
1.

The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 359/2024 of PS Prem Nagar for offence under Section 109(1)/351(3) of BNS and Section 25/27 of Arms Act.

2.

The prosecution case, as unfolded from FIR on statement of the injured is as follows. On 03.07.2024 at about 10:00pm while returning home, he saw his neighbour Kanta quarrelling with the other neighbour Sachin (the present accused/applicant). When the injured complainant de facto tried to pacify them, the accused/applicant took out his pistol and with the intention to kill him triggered the same causing firearm injury on right side of his abdomen. The injured complainant de facto was taken to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital from where he was referred to RML Hospital. The entire incident narrated above was captured on CCTV camera already installed on the spot. IO has shown me the said CCTV footage in his mobile phone, described with timelines in the status report filed by prosecution side.

3.

On the first date (29.04.2025), some proxy counsel appeared for the accused/applicant. On the next date (27.05.2025), again adjournment was requested on behalf of accused/applicant. Once again, today nobody appeared on behalf of accused/applicant in the first call and matter was passed over. But even in the second call in this post-lunch session, counsel for accused/applicant has not appeared. It seems that counsel for accused/applicant is not interested in pursuing this matter. I find no reason to adjourn this bail application, blocking the dockets.

4.

As per learned APP, one of the eyewitnesses is yet to be examined in trial and the other public witnesses have supported the prosecution.

5.

Considering the overall circumstances described above, presently I do not find it a fit case to release the accused/applicant on bail. The bail application is dismissed. However, the accused/applicant, if so advised, may file fresh bail application after testimony of the remaining eyewitness.

6.

Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for being conveyed to the accused/applicant.