Md Farhan vs State Of Nct Delhi

Court
Delhi High Court

$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: 05 November, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010401212026
+ BAIL APPLN. 3533/2026
MD FARHAN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vaibhav Tyagi, Advocate
(through VC)

versus

STATE OF NCT DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for
State
Mob: 9871349009
SI Udit, PS Ranhola
Ms. Anushkaa Arora, Standing
Counsel, DHCLSC with Mr. Imran
Khan, Adv. for Victim
M: 987199212, 011-41414498
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (Oral):

1. The present application has been filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), on behalf of the
petitioner seeking regular bail in connection with the First Information
th
Report (“FIR”) being FIR No. 789/2024 dated 18 November, 2024,
registered under Sections 109(1)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
(“BNS”), and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (“Arms Act”), at Police
Station (“PS”) Ranhola, Outer District, Delhi.
2. The case being SC 186/2026 , arising out of FIR No. 789/2024 , is
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:36:52
Page 1 of 11

pending adjudicating before the Additional Sessions Judge (“ASJ”)-09,
West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, and is presently at the stage of arguments on
charge.
3. This Court is informed that the petitioner had earlier filed an
application before the ASJ-09, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, seeking
th
regular bail, however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 08 June,
2026, passed in IA 11/2026 in SC 186/2025 .
th
4. The latest Nominal Roll dated 30 September, 2026, furnished by the
Jail Authorities, shows that the petitioner has already undergone a total
th
custody period of 01 year, 10 months, and 08 days as of 30 September,
2026.
5. The case of the prosecution, as emerging from the material on record,
is culled out as follows:
5.1. The FIR was registered on the statement of one Rajesh Kumar
(“complainant”), aged about 42 years, residing at H. No. B-26, Gali No. 28,
Mangal Bazar Road, Dass Garden, Delhi .
th
5.2. In the FIR, it was alleged that on 18 November, 2024, at about 02:00
AM, the complainant returned home from a wedding with some
companions. When the complainant, along with his companions, arrived
outside his house, four unknown persons came on a scooty and attacked him
with iron rods, and one of them also fired a gunshot, which did not hit him.
Thereafter, he was taken to Rathi Hospital, Pratap Vihar, Delhi.
5.3. In the course of investigation, the final opinion on the Medico-Legal
Certificate (“MLC”) No. 1556/2024 of the complainant was obtained, in
which the nature of the injuries was opined to be grievous.
5.4. The entire incident was captured on a CCTV camera, and the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:36:52
Page 2 of 11

concerned Digital Video Recorder (“DVR”) was seized. The CCTV footage
of the place of the incident was analysed, and the accused persons were
identified.
rd
5.5. Thereafter, on 23 November, 2024, acting on secret information,
Arvind Kumar, Kamal and the petitioner were arrested. The two iron rods
used by Kamal and the petitioner were recovered and were identified by
them. It was disclosed that the co-accused person, namely, Amit Nepali had
passed on the location of the complainant to the main conspirator, namely,
Tarun Nepali @ Thapa, through WhatsApp.
5.6. Another accused person, namely Ravi @ Golu, was subsequently
arrested, and one iron rod and a scooty without a number plate were
recovered at his instance.
5.7. The CCTV footage extracted from the place of the incident showed
that the accused persons, being Ravi @ Golu, Kamal, Ayush @ Dheela and
the petitioner arrived on a scooty, and that Ravi @ Golu, Kamal and the
petitioner assaulted the complainant with iron rods, while Ayush @ Dheela,
who was carrying a pistol, was seen firing it.
5.8. In another CCTV footage, the co-accused persons, namely, Tarun
Nepali @ Thapa, Arvind Kumar, Ajay and Danish, were seen to be present
near the place of the incident.
5.9. The Test Identification Parade (“TIP”) of the accused Kamal and the
petitioner was conducted and the complainant identified both the accused
persons.
5.10. During the course of further investigation, the main conspirator, i.e.,
Tarun Nepali @ Thapa and other co-accused persons, namely, Ayush @
Dheela, Danish @ Ashique @ DK and Ajay, were also arrested.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:36:52
Page 3 of 11

5.11. Subsequently, upon completion of the investigation, a Chargesheet
came to be filed in February, 2025, whereby, the petitioner was charged
under Sections 109(1)/61(2)/190/191(2)/191(3)/3(5) of the BNS and
Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.
6. In support of the present application, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner has made the following submissions:
rd
6.1. The petitioner was arrested on 23 November, 2024, and has been
suffering incarceration since then.
6.2. The Chargesheet was filed as far back as February, 2025, however,
the charges are yet to be framed by the Trial Court.
6.3. The evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution is entirely
documentary/electronic in nature. It is either already in the possession of the
prosecution or emanates from third-party official sources, and is wholly
incapable of being tampered with by the petitioner.
6.4. Further, the case of the prosecution is that the entire incident has been
captured on CCTV and no recovery qua the petitioner remained to be done.
In these circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the
petitioner in custody.
6.5. The prosecution seeks to rely upon a TIP, in which the complainant is
stated to have identified the petitioner. However, a TIP is not substantive
evidence but only a corroborative piece of evidence meant to aid
investigation, and cannot, by itself, form the sole basis for the continued
incarceration of the petitioner when the trial has not even commenced.
6.6. The delay in the commencement of the trial proceedings is wholly
attributable to the prosecution. Further, there is no likelihood of the trial
being completed within a reasonable time and the petitioner has already
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:36:52
Page 4 of 11

undergone a substantial period of incarceration.
7. The grant of regular bail to the petitioner has been opposed by the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor (“APP”) appearing for the State on the
following grounds:
7.1. The petitioner and the other co-accused persons were members of an
unlawful assembly, and had conspired to kill the complainant.
7.2. The petitioner, along with the co-accused persons, namely Ayush,
Ravi @ Golu and Kamal, were directly involved in the assault on the
complainant, which resulted in grievous injury to the complainant.
7.3. It is substantially evident from the CCTV footage recovered from the
place of the incident that the complainant was beaten up by the petitioner,
Ravi @ Golu and Kamal with iron rods, and thereafter, he was fired at by
Ayush.
7.4. The petitioner has been correctly identified by the complainant in his
TIP and his involvement is prima facie established by way of the evidence
on record.
7.5. The allegations against the petitioner are grave in nature and releasing
him on bail at this stage would derail the trial.
7.6. The allegation of wilful delay on the part of the State in prosecuting
the petitioner is not discernible, as the trial is proceeding earnestly and is
th
listed for arguments on charge on 20 November, 2026.
8. Learned APP appearing for the State further informs this Court that
the co-accused person, namely, Amil Nepali, has been enlarged on
anticipatory bail by this Court, while other co-accused persons, namely,
Tarun Nepali @ Thapa, Ajay, Danish and Arvind Kumar, have been granted
regular bail by the Sessions Court.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:36:52
Page 5 of 11

9. Learned Standing Counsel, Delhi High Court Legal Services
Committee (“DHCLSC”) appearing for the complainant submits that the
allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature, as the prosecution
attributes to him a direct role in the assault upon the complainant with iron
rods, resulting in grievous injury. Further, the petitioner was actively
bleeding when he brought to the hospital for the treatment.
10. She submits that the statements of all the eyewitnesses, recorded
under Section 180 of the BNSS, corroborate the version of the incident as
alleged by the complainant in his statement.
11. She further submits that the fact that the petitioner was absconding
when the investigation started cannot be ignored by this Court while
adjudicating an application for regular bail.
12. Thus, it is submitted that in view of the nature of the allegations and
the role attributed to the petitioner, the possibility of the petitioner
influencing the complainant or other material witnesses cannot be ruled out.
13. This Court has heard learned counsels appearing for the parties and
has perused the material on record.
14. At the outset, it is apposite to set out the scope of the power of this
Court to grant regular bail.
15. Reliance may be placed upon the case of Mahipal Versus Rajesh
Kumar Alias Polia and Another, (2020) 2 SCC 118 , wherein, the Supreme
Court held that the determination of whether a case is fit for the grant of bail
involved the balancing of numerous factors, like the nature of the offence,
the severity of the punishment and a prima facie view of the involvement of
the accused, are important. The relevant portion of the said judgment is
reproduced as under:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:36:52
Page 6 of 11

“xxx xxx xxx
11. Essentially, this Court is required to analyse whether
there was a valid exercise of the power conferred by Section 439
CrPC to grant bail. The power to grant bail under Section 439 is
of a wide amplitude. But it is well settled that though the grant of
bail involves the exercise of the discretionary power of the court,
it has to be exercised in a judicious manner and not as a matter
of course. In Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh [Ram
Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598 : 2002
SCC (Cri) 688] , Umesh Banerjee, J. speaking for a two-Judge
Bench of this Court, laid down the factors that must guide the
exercise of the power to grant bail in the following terms : (SCC
p. 602, paras 3-4)
“3. Grant of bail though being a discretionary order — but,
however, calls for exercise of such a discretion in a judicious
manner and not as a matter of course. Order for bail bereft of
any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Needless to record,
however, that the grant of bail is dependent upon the
contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the court and
facts, however, do always vary from case to case. … The nature
of the offence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of
bail — more heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of
rejection of the bail, though, however, dependent on the factual
matrix of the matter.
4. Apart from the above, certain other which may be
attributed to be relevant considerations may also be noticed at
this juncture, though however, the same are only illustrative and
not exhaustive, neither there can be any. The considerations
being:
(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind not
only the nature of the accusations, but the severity of the
punishment, if the accusation entails a conviction and the
nature of evidence in support of the accusations.
(b) Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being
tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for the
complainant should also weigh with the court in the matter of
grant of bail.
(c) While it is not expected to have the entire evidence
establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt
but there ought always to be a prima facie satisfaction of the
court in support of the charge.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:36:52
Page 7 of 11

(d) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and
it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be
considered in the matter of grant of bail, and in the event of
there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution,
in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an
order of bail.”

12. The determination of whether a case is fit for the grant of
bail involves the balancing of numerous factors, among which
the nature of the offence, the severity of the punishment and a
prima facie view of the involvement of the accused are
important. No straitjacket formula exists for courts to assess an
application for the grant or rejection of bail. At the stage of
assessing whether a case is fit for the grant of bail, the court is
not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the evidence on
record to establish beyond reasonable doubt the commission of
the crime by the accused. That is a matter for trial. However,
the Court is required to examine whether there is a prima facie
or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had
committed the offence and on a balance of the considerations
involved, the continued custody of the accused subserves the
purpose of the criminal justice system. Where bail has been
granted by a lower court, an appellate court must be slow to
interfere and ought to be guided by the principles set out for
the exercise of the power to set aside bail.
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
16. Further, the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Versus
Sri Darshan and Others, (2026) 8 SCC 223 , laid down the following
considerations that are relevant while exercising the discretion in granting or
denying bail:
“xxx xxx xxx
29.2. In Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Prahlad
Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 4 SCC 280 : 2001

SCC (Cri) 674] , this Court laid down guiding principles:
“(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind not only
the nature of the accusations, but the severity of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:36:52
Page 8 of 11

punishment, if the accusation entails conviction and the nature
of evidence in support of the accusations.
(b) Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered
with or the apprehension of there being a threat for the
complainant should also weigh with the court in the matter of
grant of bail.
(c) While it is not expected to have the entire evidence
establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt
but there ought always to be a prima facie satisfaction of the
court in support of the charge.
(d) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is
only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered
in the matter of grant of bail, and in the event of there being
some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the
normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of
bail.”

xxx xxx xxx

35.1. It is well settled that the mere filing of a charge-sheet
does not confer an indefeasible right to bail. Likewise, the mere
prospect of a prolonged trial cannot, by itself, outweigh the
gravity of the offence, the incriminating material gathered
during investigation, or the likelihood of tampering with
witnesses.

35.2. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [Kalyan
Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2005) 2 SCC 42 : 2005 SCC
(Cri) 489] , this Court categorically held that: (SCC p. 48, para
8)
“8. … the High Court could not have allowed the bail
application on the sole ground of delay in the conclusion of the
trial without taking into consideration the allegation made by the
prosecution in regard to the existence of prima facie case,
gravity of offence, and the allegation of tampering with the
witness by threat and inducement when on bail. … non-
consideration of the same and grant of bail solely on the ground
of long incarceration vitiated the order…”
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:36:52
Page 9 of 11

17. This Court notes that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are
serious and grave in nature. As per the case of the prosecution, the CCTV
footage of the place of the incident clearly shows the petitioner arriving on
the scooty, along with the co-accused persons, assaulting the complainant
with an iron rod, and firing a gunshot. In addition, the complainant has also
duly identified the petitioner as an accused person. Although the contentions
regarding the evidentiary value of the CCTV footage and the TIP are matters
of trial, however, they disclose a prima facie case against the petitioner.
18. A perusal of the Status Report filed by the Station House Officer
(“SHO”) before this Court states that during the investigation, the iron rods
used by the petitioner and the other accused person, namely, Kamal, during
the alleged incident having been recovered and identified by them.
19. This Court also notes that the final opinion on the MLC records the
injuries sustained by the complainant to be grievous in nature.
20. The submission on behalf of the petitioner that the evidence is entirely
documentary and electronic in nature and is, therefore, incapable of being
tampered with cannot be accepted at this stage. The need for custodial
interrogation cannot be a sole ground to grant regular bail. The same has to
be considered along with the nature of the offence and the severity of the
punishment.
21. At this juncture, this Court is conscious of the fact that the petitioner
has undergone incarceration for a period of 01 year, 10 months, and 08 days,
th
as on 30 September, 2026. However, the mere prospect of a prolonged
undertrial period cannot, by itself, outweigh the gravity of the offence, the
incriminating material gathered during the investigating, and the likelihood
of the tampering with witnesses.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:36:52
Page 10 of 11

22. At the stage of consideration of a bail application, this Court is
required to examine the nature and gravity of the accusation, the material
collected by the prosecution, the role attributed to the applicant and other
relevant parameters governing the grant of bail. This Court notes that the
complainant has remained consistent with his version qua the incident and
the direct role attributed to the petitioner. Furthermore, the FIR, the
statement of complainant under Section 180 of the BNSS, statement of eye
witnesses and the CCTV footage corroborate with each other.
23. In view of the gravity of the allegations, the role attributed to the
petitioner as per the case of the prosecution, and the submissions made
before this Court, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the
petitioner at this stage.
24. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of in the aforesaid
terms.
25. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for
the purpose of deciding the present bail application and shall not be
construed as an expression on the merits of the case.


MINI PUSHKARNA, J
NOVEMBER 5, 2026
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:36:52
Page 11 of 11