Delhi HC Denies Bail To Praveen In Azad Singh Shooting Case, Citing Two Eyewitnesses Yet To Testify

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in FIR No. 450/2022, registered under Section 302 IPC.

The chargesheet alleges offences under Sections 302/34 IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution alleges that two eyewitnesses saw the petitioner shoot the deceased with a country-made pistol after another accused caught hold of him; the weapon and an empty cartridge were allegedly recovered at the petitioner’s instance.

The petitioner had been in custody since 30 August 2022, and 19 of 43 prosecution witnesses had been examined; the two eyewitnesses remained to be examined. The trial was at the prosecution-evidence stage, and the petitioner’s earlier bail application had been dismissed by the Sessions Court.

Section 483 BNSS empowers the High Court to grant regular bail. In exercising bail discretion, the court must consider the nature of the accusation, the severity of the potential punishment, the supporting evidence, the prima facie case, and risks of witness tampering or threats; it must also consider whether the prosecution is genuine.

The Court relied on X v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., which cautions that courts should ordinarily be reluctant to entertain bail applications in serious offences once trial has commenced and prosecution witnesses are being examined.

It also relied on State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan, and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, for the principles that a chargesheet or the prospect of a prolonged trial does not, by itself, establish entitlement to bail, and that delay or incarceration must be considered alongside the prima facie case, gravity of the offence, and risk of witness tampering.

The Court weighed the petitioner’s custody and the trial’s progress against the seriousness of the charge and the evidence relied upon by the prosecution. It noted that the alleged murder was punishable with death or life imprisonment, that the weapon was allegedly recovered at the petitioner’s instance, and that the two eyewitnesses had not yet testified.

In light of those circumstances and the governing principles on bail in serious offences during trial, the Court held that continued trial and the petitioner’s period of custody did not, on their own, justify release.

It clarified that its observations were prima facie and would not affect the determination of guilt or innocence at trial.