Full Judgment Text
$~P-1 to 4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on 28.02.2026
Pronounced on 03.03.2026
Uploaded on 03.03.2026
+ BAIL APPLN. 423/2026
RAJVEER SINGH .....Petitioner
versus
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT DELHI .....Respondent
+ BAIL APPLN. 426/2026
GURMEET SINGH .....Petitioner
versus
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT DELHI .....Respondent
+ BAIL APPLN. 427/2026
GURCHARAN SINGH .....Petitioner
versus
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT DELHI .....Respondent
+ BAIL APPLN. 443/2026
SHRI WALAYATI SINGH .....Petitioner
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Appearances:
Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Mir, Senior Advocate with Mr. Priyank Kher, Mr.
Neeraj Kumar Sharma, Mr. Diwansh Tanwar and Ms. Divani Khanna,
Advocates for petitioner in Item Nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. N. Hariharan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ashwin Vaish, Mr. Akshay
Soni, Mr. Prakeet Bhalla, Ms. Malika Chadda, Ms. Punya Rekha Angara,
Mr. Aman Akhtar, Ms. Sana Singh, Mr. Arjan Singh Mandla, Ms.
Vasundhara Raj Tyagi and Ms. Vasundhara N., Advocates for Petitioner
in Item No. 4.
Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP for State with SI Ramavteer, PS-
Maidan Giri in Item Nos. 1 to 4.
Mr. Navin Sharma, Advocate for complainant in Item Nos. 1 to 4.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:03.03.2026
16:49:49
BAIL APPLN. 423/2026 & connected matters. Page 1 of 15
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
JUDGMNET
1. By way of these four bail applications filed under Section 483 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”], the petitioners
seek regular bail in connection with FIR No. 533/2025, dated 18.12.2025,
registered at Police Station Maidan Garhi, for the offences punishable
under Sections 109(1)/115(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
[“BNS”].
2. As all four bail applications arise out of the same FIR, they are
disposed of by a common order.
3. Notice was issued in these applications on 30.01.2026 and
02.02.2026. The prosecution has filed status reports dated 06.02.2026 in
each of the cases.
I. F ACTUAL MATRIX
4. The FIR was registered on the complaint of one Amit Tanwar
[hereinafter “the complainant”]. The allegations in the FIR may be
summarised as follows:
A. The complainant and his family take bookings for weddings,
parties and other functions at a property known as “ Divine Farms ”.
B. The venue was booked on 17/18.12.2025 by one Mr. Sukhvender
Singh for the wedding reception of his son.
C. At about 11:30PM-12:00AM, it was reported by his manager
Tapan that some guests were taking food out to their cars.
D. The brother of the complainant, Gaurav Tanwar [hereinafter,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:03.03.2026
16:49:49
BAIL APPLN. 423/2026 & connected matters. Page 2 of 15
Gaurav”], went with Tapan and stopped a guest from taking food to
his car. The guest is identified in the FIR as a “ Sardar ”.
E. The said guest thereafter started abusing Gaurav and called 8-10 of
his relatives.
F. At this time, the complainant reached the spot, but the group of
guests started assaulting Gaurav physically. The complainant
started pushing them to save Gaurav, at which time two persons
picked up decorative glass tubes. They started telling their
companions that they had been disrespected, by being slapped in
front of their relatives at the function, for which they would extract
revenge by killing him. Two of the persons caught Gaurav’s arms
and legs and took him to the corner with the aforesaid glass tubes,
which they used as a knife. They attacked Gaurav on his head, face
and neck. To save his brother, the complainant called his
employees. They tried to save themselves, but 7-8 persons attacked
him and his employees with chairs and other articles lying nearby.
As a result, the complainant and his employees were also hurt. The
assailants were shouting that the person concerned would be killed,
as revenge for the insult suffered by them. Ultimately, when
Gaurav fell on the ground, the assailants ran away, assuming he
was dead.
G. The complainant and his employees ran after them, but were not
able to catch them.
H. The assailants left their car [registration No. DL-12-CM-5157] at
the banquet hall.
I. The complainant took Gaurav to AIIMS Trauma Centre, and he
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:03.03.2026
16:49:49
BAIL APPLN. 423/2026 & connected matters. Page 3 of 15
was subsequently operated on his eye at the Dr. Rajendra Prasad
Eye Centre.
5. Although the FIR was registered against unknown persons, all the
four accused have been arrested in connection with the aforesaid FIR.
The petitioners in BAIL.APPLN. 423/2026 [hereinafter, “Rajveer
Singh”], BAIL.APPLN. 426/2026 [hereinafter, “Gurmeet Singh”] and
BAIL.APPLN 427/2026 [hereinafter, “Gurcharan Singh”] were arrested
on 20.12.2025 and have thus spent over two months in custody. The
petitioner in BAIL.APPLN. 443/2026 [hereinafter, “Walayati Singh”]
was arrested on 08.01.2026 and his period of custody is thus a few days
short of two months.
6. All four petitioners previously sought bail before the Sessions
Court, but their applications were dismissed. The bail applications filed
by Rajveer Singh, Gurmeet Singh, and Gurcharan Singh were dismissed
by separate orders dated 07.01.2026, whereas the bail application filed by
Walayati Singh was dismissed vide order dated 22.01.2026.
II. S UBMISSIONS BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES
7. Arguments in support of the applications were advanced by Mr. N.
Hariharan, learned Senior Counsel, on behalf of Walayati Singh, and Mr.
Tanveer Ahmed Mir, learned Senior Counsel, for the other three
petitioners. Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, and Mr. Navin Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant,
opposed the applications.
8. The arguments advanced by Mr. Hariharan and Mr. Mir may be
summarised as follows:
A. The allegations arose out of a sudden and un-premeditated fight
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:03.03.2026
16:49:49
BAIL APPLN. 423/2026 & connected matters. Page 4 of 15
which broke out between the guests at the banquet hall and the
persons running the banquet hall, over a trivial dispute. According
to the petitioners, the genesis of the dispute was in the
complainant’s brother objecting to a plate of food being carried by
one of the accused for his elderly mother, who was seated in a car
in the parking lot.
B. It was Gaurav, who in fact, escalated the dispute to a physical fight
by laying the first blow on one of the accused.
C. There is no forensic evidence to link any of the present petitioners
to the actual incident in question. The only CCTV footage
collected by the prosecution is at the entrance of the farmhouse
which, even if it shows the accused entering or leaving from the
farmhouse, does not establish their participation in the offence.
D. Learned Senior Counsel referred to the particular role attributed to
each of the petitioners in the status reports filed by the prosecution,
to submit that the charge under section 109(1) of BNS
(corresponding to Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
[“IPC”]) was not made out against them. They submitted that, at
best, the present petitioners, even according to the prosecution’s
case, would only be liable for offences under Sections 110, 115 and
117 of BNS (equivalent to Sections 308, 323, and 325 of IPC),
which would, at the most, attract a sentence of seven years’
imprisonment. They submitted that, in the absence of a
premeditated attack, the offence under section 109 of BNS would
not be made out, and that the FIR also does not disclose the
ingredients of common intention under Section 3(5) of BNS
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:03.03.2026
16:49:49
BAIL APPLN. 423/2026 & connected matters. Page 5 of 15
(equivalent to Section 34 of IPC).
E. Learned Senior Counsel also referred to the status report filed by
the prosecution before the Sessions Court in a bail application filed
by a co-accused Kirtan Singh, and to an order of Sessions Court
dated 30.12.2025, by which the said co-accused was granted bail.
They submitted that the allegations against the present petitioners
are far less grave than those against the said co-accused, and
therefore sought parity.
F. The petitioners have already spent a substantial period in custody.
None of the petitioners have criminal antecedents. The petitioners’
continued custody is not required for any purpose. Further,
Gurmeet Singh and Rajveer Singh are also very young, aged 20
and 23 years respectively.
9. Mr. Chauhan and Mr. Sharma, on the other hand, submitted as
follows:
A. Contrary to the petitioners’ case, the petitioners were the
undoubted aggressors in the incident in question. The petitioners
and their family, who had booked the hall for a wedding function,
were removing food from the location and carrying it to the
parking lot, where alcohol was being consumed without license.
They were unjustifiably angered by the polite request of Gaurav
and other employees/associates, not to do so. They therefore
attacked him with the clear intention to kill him.
B. Learned counsel drew my attention to the injuries suffered by
Gaurav, including permanent loss of vision in one eye to emphasise
the manner and brutality of the attack orchestrated upon him.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:03.03.2026
16:49:49
BAIL APPLN. 423/2026 & connected matters. Page 6 of 15
C. Relying upon a judgement of the Supreme Court in Ashish Yadav
1 2
v. Yashpal , and an order in State of Karnataka v. Battegowda ,
they submitted that common intention can be gathered on the spur
of the moment and premeditation is not the sine qua non of such an
offence.
D. They submitted that the contents of the FIR include the allegation
of exhortation to kill the victim, which clearly establishes common
intention in the facts of the case. These allegations are corroborated
by the nature of the injuries revealed in the MLC.
E. The investigation is still ongoing, and some of the participants in
the offence are still to be identified and apprehended. If the
petitioners are released on bail prior to filing of the chargesheet, it
is likely that they would seek to influence witnesses and/or tamper
with the evidence.
F. The petitioners’ reliance upon bail granted to co-accused Kirtan
Singh is of little assistance at this stage, as this Court has issued
notice on a petition filed by the complainant against the bail order
dated 30.12.2025. The said petition [CRL.M.C 159/2026], is
pending consideration and is next listed on 09.03.2026.
10. Learned counsel on both sides have also relied upon various
photographs annexed to the bail applications in support of their
contentions.
NALYSIS
III. A
11. At the very outset, it may be observed that adjudication of a bail
1
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1100 [hereinafter, “ Ashish Yadav ”].
2
Criminal Appeal No. 1694/2014, decided on 09.01.2025 [hereinafter, “ Battegowda ”].
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:03.03.2026
16:49:49
BAIL APPLN. 423/2026 & connected matters. Page 7 of 15
application is not the appropriate stage for conducting a mini trial, as held
3
by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb , and more
4
recently in State of U.P. v. Anurudh . Learned counsel for the parties
joined issue as to whether the prosecution’s case against the present
petitioners can form the basis of the charge under Section 109 of BNS,
which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, even with the
aid of Section 3(5) of BNS. However, I consider it neither necessary nor
appropriate, in the facts of the present case, to undertake this exercise at
this stage. The investigation remains in progress as of now, and it would
be premature to identify the charges which may or may not ultimately be
framed against the petitioners. For the same reason, the question of
whether the facts of the case reveal formation of a common intention by
the co-accused is also left open for the Sessions Court to consider at the
appropriate stage.
12. For the present, in my view, it suffices to examine the nature of the
allegations made against each of the petitioners, and to assess whether the
nature of those allegations requires that they be deprived of their liberty
any further. In this context, it is useful to extract the relevant contents of
the status reports filed in each of the cases:
a) Walayati Singh
“ 11. That the CCTV footage of the Divine Farm was analyzed. It is
revealed in the CCTV camera which is installed inside the banquet hall
that at 23:50;20, the injured Gaurav Tanwar is coming towards the
main gate and at 23;54;35 the petitioner/accused (the man in red
color blazer, black color turban, black pent and black color shoes is
coming towards the main entry gate .
3
(2021) 3 SCC 713.
4
2026 SCC OnLine SC 40.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:03.03.2026
16:49:49
BAIL APPLN. 423/2026 & connected matters. Page 8 of 15
12. That as per the CCTV camera which is installed at the entry gate
of the banquet hall, the quarrel was started at 23:50;31, the injured
Gaurav Tanwar came at spot at 23:50:25, the petitioner/accused (the
man in red color blazer, black color turban, black pent and black color
shoes) Villayati Singh was coming at place of incident running from
the main entry gate at 23:55:11.
13. That the presence of the petitioner/accused is shown in the CCTV
footages at the time of the incident, moreover he is seen running to
the place of incident .
14. That on 01.02.2026, the statement of injured Gaurav Tanwar was
recorded wherein he specifically named Villayati Singh the petitioner
as one of the assailants who attacked him with a candle stand,
5
resulting in permanent loss in his left eye . ”
b) Rajveer Singh:
“10. That on 11.01.2026 the statements U/S 180 BNSS of the
complainant/injured Amit Tanwar S/o Karan Singh and injured
witness Ankur Singh S/o Surender Singh have been recorded after
the TIP of the present petitioner/accused Rajveer Singh. The
witnesses stated that the present petitioner/accused Rajveer Singh
attacked on injured witness Ankur Singh by iron pipe and attacked
6
on Gaurav Tanwar and the other employees .”
c) Gurmeet Singh:
“ 10. That on 11.01.2026 the statements U/S 180 BNSS of the
complainant/injured Amit Tanwar S/o Karan Singh and injured
witness Ankur Singh S/o Surender Singh have been recorded after
the TIP of the present petitioner/accused Gurmeet Singh. The
witnesses stated that the present petitioner/accused Gurmeet Singh
attacked by iron chair on the other employees/injured who came in
7
defence of Gaurav Tanwar .”
d) Gurcharan Singh:
11. That on 11.01.2026 the statements U/S 180 BNSS of the
“
complainant/injured Amit Tanwar S/o Karan Singh and injured
witness Ankur Singh S/o Surender Singh have been recorded after
the TIP of the present petitioner/accused Gurcharan Singh. The
witnesses stated that the present petitioner/accused Gurcharan Singh
5
Emphasis supplied.
6
Emphasis supplied.
7
Emphasis supplied.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:03.03.2026
16:49:49
BAIL APPLN. 423/2026 & connected matters. Page 9 of 15
8
attacked on the other employees by punches and kicks . ”
13. The status reports in BAIL.APPLN. 423/2026, BAIL.APPLN.
426/2026 and BAIL.APPLN. 427/2026 also contains the following report
regarding the availability of CCTV coverage at the place of offence:
“ 11. That the CCTV Camera Footage of banquet hall was analysed in
which the starting point of the quarrel was covered in a camera
which is installed at entry/exit gate of banquet hall, but the main
physical assault took place at the parking area of Divine Farm as per
the statement of the complainant, which is not covered by any CCTV
Camera of banquet hall . It is pertinent to mention here that the blood
stain of the injured persons was found on the ground in the parking
9
area and the same was photographed and lifted by the crime team. ”
14. In the status reports, the prosecution has referred to the nature of
10
injuries inflicted upon the injured persons as follows :
15. That other injured persons Shamshad also sustained grievous
“
injury . Further, the injured persons Amit Tanwar, Ankur Singh,
Saurabh Singh and Surender Singh sustained simple injuries .
16. That it is pertinent to mention here that the medical record of
injured Gaurav Tanwar reflect the following injuries resulting into
permanent loss of vision in left eye .
Left Preseptal laceration and haematoma
Phthisis bulbi on the left which hyperdense contents within –
haemorrhagic content
Fracture lateral wall of left orbit with sutural diastasis of the
left frontoxygomatic suture
Fracture inferior wall of left orbit (superior wall of left
maxillary sinus) with tethered left inferior rectus muscle and
displaced comminuted fracture all walls of left maxillary sinus
Left maxillary and ethmoid haemosinus
Fracture both nasal bones
8
Emphasis supplied.
9
Emphasis supplied.
10
Extracted from the status report filed in BAIL.APPLN. 443/2026. All status reports contain the same
analysis.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:03.03.2026
16:49:49
BAIL APPLN. 423/2026 & connected matters. Page 10 of 15
11
Left preseptal laceration and haematoma. ”
15. The petitioners have also placed on record, the reply filed by the
prosecution to the bail application of Kirtan Singh before the Sessions
Court, in which it was stated as follows:
“ 10. That during the course of the investigation, statement U/s 180
BNSS was recorded of one eye witness Tapan Kumar who is a
manager in Divine farm, who has stated that one Sardaar who
assaulted Gaurav with a glass alike knife on his face flew away in his
Harrier Car no. DL 12 CB 2732 and hit on the main gate of the Divine
Farm.
11. That the ownership of the this car No. DL 12 CB 2732 was
ascertained which is found on the name of the present
applicant/accused .
GROUNDS FOR OPPOSING BAIL:
a. The offence is grave and serious in nature, involving brutal assault,
use of deadly and dangerous weapons, and life-threatening injuries,
particularly to the eye of the injured Gaurav Tanwar.
b. The role of the applicant/accused Kirtan Singh is active and
specific, and he is main assaulter who attacked on injured Gaurav .
c. Other co-accused persons are still absconding. and their arrest is
pending. Grant of bail at this stage may hamper their arrest.
d. There is a strong apprehension of the accused tampering with
evidence and Influencing witnesses, as the incident occurred in the
presence of several staff members.
e. The investigation is at a crucial stage. and custodial presence of the
12
accused is required for a fair and effective Investigation. ”
16. As noted above, the Sessions Court granted anticipatory bail to
Kirtan Singh by order dated 30.12.2025. Although the State has not
challenged the aforesaid order, the order is under challenge before this
Court at the instance of the complainant. I do not, therefore, propose to
decide the applications of the present petitioners on the basis of parity
11
Emphasis supplied.
12
Emphasis supplied.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:03.03.2026
16:49:49
BAIL APPLN. 423/2026 & connected matters. Page 11 of 15
with co-accused alone. However, the factual role attributed to each of the
accused by the prosecution, as detailed in the above status reports,
remains relevant.
17. It may be noted that, while denying bail to the present petitioners,
13
the Sessions Court has observed as follows :
“ After hearing the arguments and considering the record, this Court is
of the view that though, initial altercation which took place was
sudden and not premeditated but it cannot be said that it was an
incident involving two groups, as argued by Ld. Counsel for
accused/applicant .
On perusal of CCTV footage, it is further clear that injured
Gaurav was though aggressive and was throwing things on the mob
which had gathered but it is quite evident that at that time, he was
alone and there were no other persons along with him and he was
doing so in order to save himself. The said footage also revealed that
the glass tubes were thrown upon him by one of the members of the
14
group . ”
18. The material on record therefore prima facie suggests that there
was a sudden and spontaneous quarrel. The medical opinion certainly
shows permanent and grievous injuries inflicted upon one of the injured,
a fracture to one of the other injured, and simple injuries to three others.
Although the offence under Section 109(1) of BNS carries maximum
sentence of life imprisonment, the other offences are punishable with a
maximum of seven years imprisonment. Whether Gaurav was the first
aggressor as suggested by the petitioners, and whether all the co-accused
have formed a common intention, referrable to the offence under Section
3(5) of BNS, remains a matter for consideration at the appropriate stage.
19. However, it is clear from the above material that the co-accused
13
Extracted from the order dated 07.01.2026, passed by the Sessions Court in the bail application filed
by Rajveer Singh. All impugned orders passed by the Sessions Court contain the same analysis.
14
Emphasis supplied.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:03.03.2026
16:49:49
BAIL APPLN. 423/2026 & connected matters. Page 12 of 15
Kirtan Singh has been identified by the eyewitness Tapan Kumar, as the
person who assaulted Gaurav with a glasslike knife. He left in a vehicle
[bearing registration number DL-12-CB-2732], ownership of which has
been traced to him. The status report in his case identifies him as the
alleged " main assaulter ", who attacked Gaurav. The order of the Sessions
Court also mentions that “ one of the members of the group ” had thrown
glass tubes upon Gaurav. While there is no CCTV coverage of the actual
incident, and TIP was conducted by two of the injured other than Gaurav,
Walayati Singh is identified only by his presence near the main gate of
the banquet hall, and he was also named by Gaurav in his statement, as
one of the assailants who attacked him with a candle stand. The other
three petitioners are accused of having attacked Gaurav and other injured
persons by an iron pipe [in the case of Rajveer], upon other employees or
injured by an iron chair [in the case of Gurmeet], and upon other
employees by punches and kicks [in the case of Gurucharan]. The direct
attack upon Gaurav with the glass tubes is thus, prima facie , not
attributed to them.
20. In view of the foregoing, at this stage, I do not consider the prima
facie material on record and the role attributed to the present petitioners
such as to justify their continued incarceration.
21. The petitioners have already been in custody for a period of
approximately two months each. The prosecution has not clearly
identified any aspect of pending investigation with which they may
potentially interfere, except to state that other accused are yet to be
apprehended. There is also no record with regard to prior criminal
antecedents against any of the petitioners.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:03.03.2026
16:49:49
BAIL APPLN. 423/2026 & connected matters. Page 13 of 15
IV. C ONCLUSION
22. Having regard to all the above factors, I am of the view that the
petitioners are entitled to bail in the facts and circumstances of the case.
23. It is therefore directed that the petitioners will be released on bail in
connection with FIR No. 533/2025, dated 18.12.2025, registered at Police
Station Maidan Garhi, subject to furnishing personal bonds in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- each with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of
the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, and subject to the following further
conditions:
A. The petitioners shall join investigation as and when required by the
Investigating Officer [“IO”].
B. The petitioners shall furnish their residential address to the IO and
shall not change the same without prior intimation to the IO;
C. The petitioners shall furnish their mobile number to the IO and
shall ensure that the said mobile numbers remain operational and
switched on at all times. The mobile numbers shall not be changed,
nor shall the phones be switched off, without prior intimation to the
IO;
D. The petitioners shall not leave the country without permission of
the Trial Court. If they are leaving the NCT of Delhi, they will
inform the IO with details of their itinerary and the address at
which they will be available.
E. The petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, influence the
complainant or any witness, nor shall they tamper with the
evidence in any manner whatsoever;
F. The petitioners shall not commit any offence during the pendency
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:03.03.2026
16:49:49
BAIL APPLN. 423/2026 & connected matters. Page 14 of 15
of the proceedings.
24. The bail applications stand disposed of.
25. It is clarified that the observations made herein are solely for the
purpose of adjudication of the present bail applications, and shall not be
construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, nor shall
they prejudice the rights and contentions of the parties at any stage of the
proceedings.
26. It is also clarified that this order will not prejudice the rights and
contentions of the parties in CRL.M.C 159/2026.
27. A copy of this order be communicated to the concerned Jail
Superintendent for necessary information and compliance.
28. A copy of the order be given dasti under the signature of the Court
Master.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
MARCH 03, 2026
“Bhupi”/AD/
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:03.03.2026
16:49:49
BAIL APPLN. 423/2026 & connected matters. Page 15 of 15