Absence of Gunshot Residue and Non-Recovery of Projectile Negate Point-Blank Range Allegations for Anticipatory Bail

The Petitioner sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 734/2025 (PS Narela) involving offences under Sections 109(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The prosecution alleged that during a scuffle between two groups, the Petitioner brandished a pistol and fired at point-blank range into the right knee of the victim, Arbaz.

Procedurally, the application was transferred to the current bench as it had previously granted bail to co-accused Jakir Hussain based on the same investigation file.

Medical reports from Satyawadi Raja Harish Chandra Hospital noted two entry wounds with no exit wounds, while subsequent LNJP Hospital records noted "suspected" entry/exit wounds but found no tattooing or blackening.

Whether the medical evidence and investigation discrepancies regarding the gunshot injury justify the grant of anticipatory bail to the Petitioner.

The Court applied the principles governing the grant of anticipatory bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (corresponding to Section 438 CrPC), balancing the liberty of the accused against the gravity of the allegations.

It relied on the evidentiary standard for firearm injuries, noting that point-blank shots typically result in "tattooing or blackening".

Furthermore, it followed the principle of parity and consistency in judicial findings, referencing its own prior observations in the related case of Jakir Hussain vs State of NCT of Delhi (2026:DHC:519) regarding the implausibility of the prosecution’s forensic claims.

The Court found significant "vital implausibilities" in the prosecution's case.

First, medical reports from LNJP hospital showed no tattooing or blackening around the wound, which contradicts the allegation of a point-blank shot.

Second, the Court noted a physical impossibility: the victim allegedly had two wounds on the same side of the body with only one shot fired and no exit wound, or a "suspected" exit wound that would require the bullet to take a "U-turn inside the body".

Finally, the investigation failed to recover any bullet from the victim’s body or any empty shells from the crime scene.

Given these forensic gaps and the fact that a co-accused was already granted bail on similar grounds, the Court determined that custodial interrogation was not warranted.

The Court directed that in the event of arrest, the Petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the IO/SHO.

The Court clarified that the trial court remains free to take an independent view of the evidence during the trial.