Facts
The Petitioner sought regular bail regarding FIR No. 175/2025 (PS Anand Parbat) involving charges of assault on a police party
Source reference: p.1According to the prosecution, on February 24, 2025, during a raid based on secret information, the Petitioner’s associates attacked Sub-Inspector Neeraj with a knife, while the Petitioner allegedly brandished a pistol before fleeing
Source reference: p.2On February 25, 2025, a separate incident occurred where the Petitioner was arrested by a Special Staff team after an exchange of fire, leading to a second FIR in which the Petitioner had already been granted bail
Source reference: p.2-3The Petitioner has been in custody for the present case since March 1, 2025
Source reference: p.3During the trial, a recovery witness (PW4/HC Vikesh Kumar) remained silent regarding the Petitioner’s specific role
Source reference: p.2Issues
1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to regular bail considering the nature of the allegations and the testimony of prosecution witnesses
Source reference: p.32. Whether there exists a risk of the Petitioner influencing witnesses who are exclusively police officials
Source reference: p.3Law Applied
Sections 109(1), 132, 221, 3(5), and 49 of the BNS, read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act
Source reference: p.1The principle that the deprivation of liberty should not be continued if there is no risk of witness tampering and if the evidence presented thus far does not strongly implicate the accused
Source reference: p.3Reasoning
The Court observed that while the State opposed bail on the grounds of the severity of the offense (firing at police), that specific incident pertained to a subsequent FIR for which the Petitioner had already been granted bail
Source reference: p.3Regarding the present FIR (the brandishing incident), the Court noted that the Petitioner has been in custody for over a year since March 2025
Source reference: p.3Crucially, the Court analyzed the deposition of PW4 (HC Vikesh Kumar), noting that the witness failed to mention any role played by the Petitioner and was not declared hostile by the prosecutor
Source reference: p.2-3Furthermore, the Court reasoned that since all prosecution witnesses are police officials, the apprehension that the Petitioner would "terrorise" or influence them is unfounded
Source reference: p.3Holding
The Court answered the issues in the affirmative, holding that there was no justification for the continued detention of the Petitioner
The bail application was allowed. The Court ordered the Petitioner to be released on a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court
Source reference: p.3-4The Jail Superintendent was directed to inform the Petitioner of the order immediately
Source reference: p.4Original Court PDF
Anish YadavvsState Of Nct Of Delhi
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in