Amit vs State (Nct Of Delhi)
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~63, 64, 65
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%
# CNR No.DLHC010773032025
Date of Decision : 27.10.2026
+ BAIL APPLN. 3871/2025
(63) AMIT .....Petitioner
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent
# CNR No.DLHC010773092025
+ BAIL APPLN. 3877/2025
(64) DEVENDER @ DEV .....Petitioner
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent
# CNR No.DLHC010258012026
+
BAIL APPLN. 2165/2026
(65) RAKESH ALIAS MINTU .....Petitioner
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through:
Presence:
Mr. Jitender Sethi, Sr. Adv. and Mr. Javed Alvi, Adv. for petitioner in item
no.63.
Mr. Kirti Uppal, Sr. Adv., Mr. Himanhsu Kaushiuk, Mr. Rupender Sharma,
Mr. Abhinav Raghav, Ms. Riya Gulati, Mr. Abhay Sharma and Mr. Krishna
Singh Jadon, Advs. for petitioner in item no.64.
Mr. Amit Chadha, Sr. Adv., Mr. Himanshu Kaushik, Mr. Dhruv Tomar, Mr.
Harjas Singh, Mr. Sanbjay Singh and Ms. Juhi Chauhan, Advs. for petitioner
in item no.65.
Mr. Shishir Mathur, Mr. Akshat Aggarwal, Mr. Yajur Sharma and Ms.
Muskan Tyagi, Advs. for complainant in item nos.63, 64, 65.
Ms. Priyanka Dalal, APP for State in item nos.63, 64 and65.
Inspector Kailash Chand, PS Tilak Nagar, New Delhi.
BAIL APPLN. 3871/2025 & Connected Matters Page 1 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:28.10.2026
10:46:52
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
SACHIN DATTA, J. ( ORAL )
Crl.M.A.38036/2025 ( filed on behalf of complainant / victim seeking
necessary directions for vacating interim protection from arrest) in BAIL
APPLN. 3871/2025
Crl.M.A.37915/2025 (filed on behalf of complainant / victim seeking
necessary direction for vacating interim protection from arrest) in
BAIL APPLN. 3877/2025
BAIL APPLN. 3871/2025
BAIL APPLN. 3877/2025
BAIL APPLN. 2165/2026
1. The present applications filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“ ”) seek anticipatory bail in FIR
BNSS
No.190/2025 dated 30.03.2025, registered at P.S. Tilak Nagar under
Sections 140/103(1), 238,3(5),61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
(“ BNS” ) and Sections 25,27,54,59 of Arms Act. Section 209 BNS was
added against the accused, Devender @ Dev and Rakesh @ Mintu who had
absconded.
2. BAIL APPLN. 3871/2025 has been filed by accused Amit; BAIL
APPLN. 3877/2025 has been filed by his brother Devender @ Dev. BAIL
APPLN. 2165/2026 has been filed by accused Rakesh @ Mintu.
3. Crl.M.A.38036/2025 in BAIL APPLN. 3871/2025 and Crl. M.A.
37915/2025 in BAIL APPLN. 3877/2025 have been filed by the
complainant, who is the brother of the deceased, seeking vacation of the
interim protection granted by this Court to accused Amit and Devender on
10.10.2025. Thereafter, interim protection was also granted to the accused
BAIL APPLN. 3871/2025 & Connected Matters Page 2 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:28.10.2026
10:46:52
Rakesh on 03.06.2026.
4. All the matters arise out of the same FIR and are, therefore being
disposed of by way of this common order.
5. An updated status report dated 04.10.2026 (handed over on
06.10.2026) has been filed in BAIL APPLN. 3871/2025.
Factual Background
6. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased Sagar, aged about 28
years, and his brothers worked in hotels run by the applicants Amit and
Devender till November, 2024. Thereafter they ventured into their own hotel
business.
7. On 22.02.2025, Sagar approached the owner of the premises of Hotel
D-2, Meera Bagh, Paschim Vihar, Delhi for taking the hotel on lease.
However, the proposed transaction did not fructify. On 27.02.2025, at the
instance of Devender, the same premises was taken on a five-year lease in
the name of Mohit, brother of Amit and Devender. The premises was run as
Hotel D-2. Co-accused Amit @‘Sulli’, a relative of one of the applicants,
was working there as a senior manager.
8. It is stated that at about 11.40 PM on 26.03.2025, Sagar reached the
adjoining Bro-Stay Hotel on his motorcycle, where co-accused Ankit and
Sahil met him, and he was thereafter taken by them and others into Hotel D-
2. Sagar was not seen alive again post this incident.
9. It is the case of the prosecution that at about 01.15 AM on
27.03.2025, Sahil wearing Sagar’s clothes and a helmet rode away on
Sagar’s motorcycle. At about 03.00 AM the night- shift manager, Ashwani,
who had earlier been sent upstairs by co-accused Ankit, found the cameras
BAIL APPLN. 3871/2025 & Connected Matters Page 3 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:28.10.2026
10:46:52
and the computer system of the hotel switched off. It is further the case of
prosecution that movement of a Santro car was also found in the CCTV
footage of nearby hotels. The same car crossed Jevana Toll Plaza at about
05.17 AM. At about 07.15 AM, Sagar’s body bearing bullet injuries was
found burnt in a sugarcane field near Kandla, District Shamli, U.P. The
Santro car was also found burnt.
10. The DVR of the hotel has not yet been found nor has the pistol /
weapon been recovered.
11. Ankit, Sahil and Manjeet @ Monu, who were arrested on 08.04.2025
were charge-sheeted by way of the main charge-sheet.
12. The accused Amit @ Sulli absconded and was declared a proclaimed
offender. However, he was arrested on 25.10.2025 and has been charge-
sheeted by way of a supplementary chargesheet along with Ankush @
Heddy; the latter was chargesheeted only under Section 238(a) BNS.
13. Both charge-sheets record that the investigation against the present
applicants continues. In the status report dated 04.10.2026 (handed over
during the course of hearing on 06.10.2026) it has been recorded that a
further supplementary charge-sheet against all the present accused has been
prepared and has been sent to the prosecution branch. It has been further
stated that ‘the same shall be filed shortly’.
Role attributed to each applicant
14. For the purpose of the present petitions, this Court is not taking into
account the disclosure statements of co-accused in line with the dicta laid
down by the Supreme Court in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of
BAIL APPLN. 3871/2025 & Connected Matters Page 4 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:28.10.2026
10:46:52
1
Andhra Pradesh , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1157
. However, it is the case of
the prosecution that there is ample material against the present accused
persons based on statements made by the witnesses and also from
documentary and electronic records.
15. It is the case of the prosecution that accused Amit and Devender are
the principal conspirators and that they had a motive to kill Sagar in view of
the business rivalry between them. It is further the case of the prosecution
that the said accused persons had control over the hotel where the deceased
Sagar was killed. Reliance is also placed on Call Data Records (CDRs)
which reveal the manner in which the accused persons and the present
petitioners were in touch with each other.
16. Attention is also drawn to the fact that Sagar’s brothers (Shantanu and
Abhishek) and his cousin (Vipin) have stated in their statements under
Section 180 BNSS that on 30.11.2024, Amit and Devender told Sagar that
they would kill him or get him shot if he works separately and that in
January, 2025 they again threatened Sagar to vacate his hotel or else he
would be shot. It is further pointed out that Devender took the premises of
hotel D-2 on lease just five days after Sagar made an attempt to do so.
1
46. Both Indresh Kumar (supra) and Salim Khan (supra) have held that in deciding the question of
grant of bail, it is the statements of witness under Section 161 of the Cr. P.C. that has to be looked into.
Nowhere has this Court held that even the police statements of the accused person under Section 161 of the
Cr. P.C. must also be looked into at the stage of grant of anticipatory or regular bail.
47. This is because a statement of an accused under Section 161 of the Cr. P.C. stands on a different
footing from a police statement of any ordinary witness. Statements of an accused person under Section
161 of the Cr. P.C. by virtue of ordinarily being in the form of either an admission or a confession cannot
be looked into qua another co-accused, as to say otherwise would be to ignore the substantive provisions of
Section(s) 17, 21, 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act and the well settled cannons of law of evidence. However,
the aforesaid does not apply, where the statement of an accused under Section 161 of the Cr. P.C. is
exculpatory in nature, which we shall discuss later.
BAIL APPLN. 3871/2025 & Connected Matters Page 5 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:28.10.2026
10:46:52
17. Specific attention is also drawn to the CDRs which reveal that
accused Devender (petitioner in BAIL APPLN. 3877/2025) spoke to
accused Sulli at 02.45 AM on 27.03.2025. Accused Amit is alleged to be a
co-conspirator who ran Hotel D-2 and who was allegedly at the hotel on the
evening of the murder with the very co-accused who took Sagar inside. The
threats to kill are specifically attributed to the said accused as well.
18. The accused Rakesh is alleged to have assisted the co-accused in
disposing of Sagar’s body by providing a clear passage to the Santro
carrying the body, so as to help it cross the Delhi border and avoid police
checking, while travelling in his own car, i.e. a Kia Seltos. Co-accused
Ankush @ Heddy is stated to have been travelling with Rakesh in the said
car.
19. The concerned car is registered in Rakesh’s own name, and its
location was found at the Jevana Toll Plaza crossing at 05.14 AM on
27.03.2025, i.e. three minutes ahead of the Santro, which crossed the toll at
05.17 AM. As many as 15 calls are stated to have been exchanged between
the mobile phone of Rakesh and the number used by co-accused Ankit
between 04.14 AM and 06.14 AM on 27.03.2025, and the location of
Rakesh’s mobile phone was found on the route to Shamli at the relevant
time.
20. Importantly, the prosecution emphasized the conduct of the accused
persons. Both Amit and Devender (accused in BAIL APPLN. 3871/2025
and BAIL APPLN. 3877/2025, respectively) left their houses on 30.03.2025
and switched off their mobiles, and remained untraceable for a substantial
period. Raids were thereafter conducted at their village and at their hotels
BAIL APPLN. 3871/2025 & Connected Matters Page 6 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:28.10.2026
10:46:52
and a Look Out Circular (LOC) was also opened. Learned Magistrate vide
order dated 16.04.2025 issued non-bailable warrants against both on the
ground that the said accused persons were evading joining the investigation.
21. On 09.05.2025, this Court dismissed CRL.M.C. 2844/2025, the
petition which laid challenge to their warrants, noticing that the accused
persons were evading arrest and not joining investigation and were not
traceable either at their homes or at the 15 hotels which they were allegedly
running in Delhi. Process under Section 84 BNSS followed.
22. Thereafter, accused Devender and Amit managed to obtain interim
protection from the learned ASJ vide orders dated 28.06.2025 and
25.07.2025 respectively, whereupon they are stated to have joined the
investigation. It is stated that the issuance of process under Section 84 BNSS
was thereafter stayed. Consequently, the said accused were never declared
proclaimed offenders. However, qua accused Rakesh, process under Section
84 BNSS was issued and executed and he was declared a proclaimed
offender on 28.02.2026. Even so, vide order dated 03.06.2026, passed by
this Court, interim protection was granted to Rakesh on the same lines as
Amit and Devender.
Submissions
23. The primary submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that
the accused have joined the investigation and that the investigation stands
completed. A supplementary charge-sheet against them has also been
prepared and is ready to be filed as per the prosecution itself. It is also
pointed out that the petitioners have joined the investigation whenever called
BAIL APPLN. 3871/2025 & Connected Matters Page 7 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:28.10.2026
10:46:52
upon to do so pursuant to interim protection being granted by this Court and
that they have not misused the interim protection.
24. It is further submitted that the phones of the petitioners have already
been seized and nothing remains to be recovered from them. Further, the
electronic devices / mobile phones of Amit and Devender have already been
subject to examination by the FSL.
25. It is further the case of the petitioners that it is implicit from the status
report filed on behalf of the prosecution that custodial interrogation of
accused Amit (applicant in BAIL APPLN. 3871/2025) is not required. It is
further submitted on behalf of accused Amit that even as per the prosecution
itself he is not the principal conspirator. It is further pointed out that even as
per accused Sulli, it is Devender (applicant in BAIL APPLN. 3877/2025),
who is the principal conspirator.
26. Learned counsel for the applicant in Crl.M.A. 38036/2025 strongly
controverts the aforesaid submission. He submits that Amit was a co-
conspirator who ran Hotel D-2 and who was at the hotel on the evening of
the murder. It is further pointed out that in the statement of night-manager
Ashwini, under Section 180 and 183 BNSS, the latter disclosed that on the
evening of 26.03.2025, Amit (owner) was at the hotel with Sulli, Ankit,
Sahil and Monu @ Bacardi, and had dinner with Sulli at the reception before
leaving. This is stated to be corroborated by the statements of Bhupender
(day manager) and Vinod (housekeeping staff) under Section 180 BNSS.
27. It is also emphasized that accused Rakesh has been declared a
proclaimed offender and has criminal antecedents.
28. It is further submitted that in the present petition there has been a
BAIL APPLN. 3871/2025 & Connected Matters Page 8 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:28.10.2026
10:46:52
blatant concealment on the part of the accused Rakesh as regards the
coercive process issued against him.
Reasoning and Conclusion
29. The legal position is well settled that anticipatory bail is an
extraordinary legal remedy. The Supreme Court has held in Jai Prakash
Singh v. State of Bihar , (2012) 4 SCC 379 that anticipatory bail, being an
extraordinary privilege should be granted in exceptional cases. The relevant
observations are as under:
“ 13. There is no substantial difference between Sections 438 and 439
CrPC so far as appreciation of the case as to whether or not a bail is to
be granted, is concerned. However, neither anticipatory bail nor regular
bail can be granted as a matter of rule. The anticipatory bail being an
extraordinary privilege should be granted only in exceptional cases. The
judicial discretion conferred upon the court has to be properly exercised
after proper application of mind to decide whether it is a fit case for
grant of anticipatory bail.
*
19. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are
required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, the court
must record the reasons therefor. Anticipatory bail can be granted only
in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view
that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not
misuse his liberty.”
In Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar , (2024) 12 SCC 382, the
30.
Supreme Court reiterated that the power to grant anticipatory bail is an
extraordinary power, and that a person against whom a warrant of arrest or
proclamation has been issued is ordinarily not entitled to invoke the same. It
was observed as under:
“ 30. We have already held that the power to grant anticipatory bail is an
extraordinary power. Though in many cases it was held that bail is said
to be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that
anticipatory bail is the rule. It cannot be the rule and the question of its
grant should be left to the cautious and judicious discretion by the court
BAIL APPLN. 3871/2025 & Connected Matters Page 9 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:28.10.2026
10:46:52
depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. While called
upon to exercise the said power, the court concerned has to be very
cautious as the grant of interim protection or protection to the accused in
serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the
investigation to a great extent as it may sometimes lead to tampering or
distraction of the evidence. We shall not be understood to have held that
the court shall not pass an interim protection pending consideration of
such application as the section is destined to safeguard the freedom of an
individual against unwarranted arrest and we say that such orders shall
be passed in eminently fit cases. At any rate, when warrant of arrest or
proclamation is issued, the applicant is not entitled to invoke the
extraordinary power. Certainly, this will not deprive the power of the
court to grant pre-arrest bail in extreme, exceptional cases in the interest
of justice. But then, person(s) continuously defying orders and keeps
absconding is not entitled to such grant.”
31. On the specific question regarding whether absence of a need for
custodial interrogation or the completion of investigation entitles an accused
to anticipatory bail, the position has been settled by the Supreme Court in
the following decisions:
(i) P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement , (2019) 9 SCC
24:
“74. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of the investigation
intended to secure several purposes. There may be circumstances in
which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of
material facts and relevant information. Grant of anticipatory bail may
hamper the investigation. Pre-arrest bail is to strike a balance between
the individual's right to personal freedom and the right of the
investigating agency to interrogate the accused as to the material so far
collected and to collect more information which may lead to recovery of
relevant information. In State v. Anil Sharma [State v. Anil Sharma,
(1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] , the Supreme Court held as
under: (SCC p. 189, para 6)
“6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial
interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than
questioning a suspect who is well-ensconced with a
favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case
like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of
tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful
BAIL APPLN. 3871/2025 & Connected Matters Page 10 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:28.10.2026
10:46:52
informations and also materials which would have been
concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the
suspected person knows that he is well protected and
insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is
interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition
would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the
custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the
person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be
countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all
accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that
responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a
responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of
disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as
offenders.” ”
(ii) Sumitha Pradeep vs. Arun Kumar C.K, (2022) 17 SCC 391:
“12. We are dealing with a matter wherein the original
complainant (appellant herein) has come before this Court
praying that the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court
to the accused should be cancelled. To put it in other words,
the complainant says that the High Court wrongly exercised
its discretion while granting anticipatory bail to the accused
in a very serious crime like Pocso and, therefore, the order
passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the
accused should be quashed and set aside. In many
anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common
argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is
required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted.
There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no
case for custodial interrogation is made out by the
prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant
anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the
relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds
while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail.
There may be many cases in which the custodial
interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that
does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused
should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted
anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court
hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is
the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter,
the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the
severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be
BAIL APPLN. 3871/2025 & Connected Matters Page 11 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:28.10.2026
10:46:52
one of the grounds to decline anticipatory bail. However,
even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated,
by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail.”
32. It is in the aforesaid context that this Court is required to examine the
plea of the petitioners that investigation is complete and therefore no
purpose would be served by the custodial interrogation of the petitioners. In
this regard the following aspects are noticed by this Court:
(i) Both the charge-sheets that have been so far filed record that the
investigation against the present petitioners continues.
(ii) The draft of the supplementary charge-sheet which has been
prepared and lying with the prosecution branch cannot be equated
with the report forwarded to the Magistrate under Section 193(3)
BNSS. Even after the same is filed, the police retain the power of
further investigation under Section 193 (9) BNSS. The investigation
into the role of the applicants and into the missing weapon and the
DVR is by no means foreclosed given the factual conspectus of the
case.
(iii) The investigation clearly has a specific unfinished object viz. to
recover the weapon with which the deceased was shot and to recover
the DVR of the concerned hotel which has conspicuously gone
missing. Both ought to be within the knowledge of those who
controlled the hotel on the night of the alleged incident, which
includes the petitioners Amit and Devender.
(iv) The status report dated 04.10.2026 (handed over during the
course of proceedings on 06.10.2026) record that Amit and Devender
were called and interrogated, while protective orders were in
BAIL APPLN. 3871/2025 & Connected Matters Page 12 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:28.10.2026
10:46:52
operation, regarding their role and the recovery of the weapon of
offence and the DVR of Hotel D-2; they denied their role and stated
that they were not aware of the weapon of offence or the DVR,
neither of which could be recovered. Qua Rakesh, the aforesaid status
report records that he is not disclosing the true facts, not cooperating
with the investigation and that all the data on his mobile phone was
found to have already been deleted when it was seized. This is
precisely the situation in which questioning of a person who is “well-
ensconced with a favourable order” is unproductive, as noticed in P.
Chidambaram (supra).
(v) The seizure of the mobile phones of the applicants does not
exhaust the matter. As acknowledged in the written submissions of
Devender himself, one of his two phones could not be accessed by the
FSL, and the data on the mobile phone of Rakesh had already been
deleted before it was seized. That the electronic trail is wiped or
inaccessible is a reason against, and not for, the relief sought.
33. The considerations governing grant of anticipatory bail are not
confined to custodial interrogation. The gravity of the offence, the role
attributed, the conduct of the applicants towards the process of law, all bear
on the exercise of discretion. Each of these weighs against the applicants.
34. The offence, as alleged, is a planned murder, after which the body of
the deceased was transported across the State border to District Shamli,
U.P., where it was set on fire with a view to destroying the evidence. As
regards the conduct of the applicants, non-bailable warrants were issued
against Amit and Devender after they left their houses and switched off their
BAIL APPLN. 3871/2025 & Connected Matters Page 13 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:28.10.2026
10:46:52
mobile phones on 30.03.2025, and proclamation proceedings under Section
84 BNSS were initiated against them before they obtained interim
protection. Rakesh evaded the non-bailable warrant issued against him and
was declared a proclaimed offender on 28.02.2026. This itself a ground to
decline the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.
35. Material witnesses, viz . Ashwani (night-shift manager), Bhupender
(day manager) and Vinod (housekeeping staff), were working at Hotel D-2,
which was being run by the applicants Amit and Devender. The risk of
influence on such witnesses is real and does not end with the filing of the
charge-sheet. The applicants joined the investigation only after obtaining
interim protection having remained untraceable for a considerable period of
time.
36. Joining of the investigation does not efface the earlier evasion.
Further, denial of extraordinary pre-arrest protection cannot possibly affect
the applicants’ right to seek regular bail after surrender. Any such
application would necessarily be considered on its own merits.
37. An accused who has evaded the process of law cannot, by doing so
long enough for the investigation to near its end, convert that evasion into a
ground for pre-arrest bail.
38. As such, this Court is not inclined to extend the interim protection qua
the petitioners nor does the Court find any merit in the present petitions.
39. The submission made on behalf of Amit that he is not the principal
conspirator does not advance his case. The threats to kill Sagar are attributed
to him, along with Devender, by three witnesses. The day manager,
Bhupender, describes him as the owner through whom he received his salary
BAIL APPLN. 3871/2025 & Connected Matters Page 14 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:28.10.2026
10:46:52
and who placed him in charge of Hotel D-2. Ashwani, corroborated by
Bhupender and Vinod, places him at the hotel on the evening of 26.03.2025
in the company of Sulli, Ankit, Sahil and Manjeet @ Monu, shortly before
Sagar was taken inside. The reliance placed on the statement of Sulli, to the
effect that Devender is the principal conspirator, is reliance on the disclosure
of a co-accused, and does not diminish the material/ evidence against Amit.
The observation of the learned ASJ in the order dated 25.07.2025 that the
material against Amit was “not substantial” was made at the stage of grant
of interim protection; the same Court dismissed his application on
27.09.2025 on a fuller record.
40. The plea that role attributed to Rakesh is a limited one under Section
238 BNS does not assist him either. The disposal of the body was the
culminating step of a planned murder, and the conduct of a person who is
alleged to have escorted it across the State border bears directly on the relief
sought by him in these proceedings.
41. As noticed, the material against these applicants is substantial and the
prosecution has painstakingly emphasised the same.
42. Learned APP for the State has also emphasized that the call details
between the applicants and the co-accused persons, subsequent conduct of
the applicants in becoming untraceable and evading the due process, are also
telling in nature.
43. No exceptional case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out
considering the following facts and circumstances :
(i) the planned nature of the murder;
(ii) the independent material against each applicant;
BAIL APPLN. 3871/2025 & Connected Matters Page 15 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:28.10.2026
10:46:52
(iii) the evasion of non bailable warrants;
(iv)the non-recovery of the weapon and the DVR;
(v) the prime witnesses are the applicants’ own employees.
44. Accordingly, the present petitions are dismissed. Crl.M.A.
38036/2025 in BAIL APPLN. 3871/2025 and Crl.M.A. 37915/2025 in
BAIL APPLN. 3877/2025 are allowed. The interim protection granted to the
petitioners vide orders dated 10.10.2025 and 03.06.2026 stands vacated. All
other pending applications also stand disposed of.
45. The applicants shall surrender before the Trial Court within a period
of one week from today. In default, the concerned Investigating Officer /
Trial Court shall proceed in accordance with law.
46. After surrender, the applicants shall be at liberty to apply for regular
bail which shall be considered on its own merits uninfluenced by the
observations made herein.
47. It is made clear that the observations herein are prima facie and
confined to decision of these applications. The same shall not be construed
as an unqualified and final expression of opinion of this Court on merits of
the case.
48. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned Trial Court.
49. Order dasti .
SACHIN DATTA, J
OCTOBER 27, 2026/ cl
BAIL APPLN. 3871/2025 & Connected Matters Page 16 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:28.10.2026
10:46:52