Delhi High Court – Orders
Praveen Dabas vs State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi on 15 April, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 998/2024
PRAVEEN DABAS .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sumeet Shokeen and Mr.
Kartikey Anand, Advocates.
versus
STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP.
Inspector Mangesh Tyagi, ARSC/
Crime Branch, Delhi.
Mr. Ashok Dhankad, Mr. Joginder
Tuli, Ms. Joshine Tuli and Ms. Sonu
Kumari, Advocates for father of the
deceased.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 15.04.2025
CRL.M.(BAIL) 821/2025 (seeking grant of interim bail)
1. The Applicant seeks regular bail in FIR No. 218/2021 registered
under Sections 308/325/323/341/506/188/269/34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 and 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959 at P.S. Model Town.
2. The Applicant is an accused in the aforementioned FIR and, in
addition to the grounds set out in the application, seeks regular bail on the
ground of parity with co-accused Sushil Kumar, who was granted regular
bail by this Court vide order dated 4th March, 2025 in BAIL APPLN.
2654/2024, titled Sushil Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi). It is pertinent to
note that the said decision is under challenge before the Supreme Court in
SLP (Crl.) No. 5370/2025 (Diary No. 14074/2025), filed by the father of the
BAIL APPLN. 998/2024 Page 1 of 5
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/04/2025 at 21:25:39
deceased.
3. At this juncture, Mr. Sumeet Shokeen, counsel for the Applicant,
seeks interim bail in the aforesaid proceedings citing grounds of parity. In
addition, medical reasons for the release of the Applicant are also cited.
4. Ms. Joshine Tuli, counsel representing the father of the deceased, and
Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State strongly oppose the bail request.
5. The Court has heard the counsel on this issue. Notwithstanding the
medical grounds, the Applicant’s request for interim bail is primarily on the
ground of parity with the co-accused.
6. This Court had granted bail to Sushil Kumar as all 24 material
witnesses had turned hostile and did not support the prosecution’s case. It is
settled law that when prima facie, a doubt is created in the genuineness of
the prosecution’s version, in the normal course of events, the accused is
entitled to bail. Thus, in line with this principle, the Court found it
appropriate to grant bail to Sushil Kumar.
7. Considering the role ascribed to the Applicant, prima facie, the
doctrine of parity is applicable qua the Applicant and he is entitled to be
enlarged on bail on this ground. Prima facie the material on record is
sufficient to grant regular bail to the Applicant, on the grounds of parity,
however, considering that the aforesaid bail order dated 4th March, 2025, is
under challenge before the Supreme Court and the outcome of the said
proceedings would have a direct bearing on the present Applicant’s claim,
this Court, at this stage, is not inclined to consider the prayer for regular bail
on merits. A decision on this aspect is deferred and shall be taken up after
the Supreme Court has rendered its verdict in SLP (Crl.) No. 5370/2025.
BAIL APPLN. 998/2024 Page 2 of 5
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/04/2025 at 21:25:39
However, the power to grant interim bail is implicit while considering the
application seeking regular bail.1
8. That said, as noted by this Court previously, there is no stay of the
order of this Court dated 4th March, 2025 granted by the Supreme Court,
despite a categorical request being made to that effect. As per the Supreme
Court’s order dated 1st April, 2025 in the pending SLP, a returnable date of
28th April, 2025, has been fixed and directions have been issued for filing of
counter affidavits. Counsel for the Applicant, who also represents Sushil
Kumar, confirmed service of notice of the SLP on 14th April, 2025, and
states that they are in the process of filing a response.
9. Notably, the Applicant has been in custody for approximately 3 years
and 9 months. He was previously granted interim bail, and his conduct
during incarceration, as per the Nominal Roll, has remained satisfactory
over the last one year. Furthermore, all material witnesses have now been
examined. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the
Applicant can be enlarged on interim bail, subject to strict conditions.
10. Therefore, the Applicant is directed to be released on interim bail till
30th April, 2025 on furnishing a personal bond for a sum of INR 50,000/-
with two sureties of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the
concerned Trial Court/ Duty MM/ Jail Superintendent on the following
conditions:
(a) The Applicant shall, under no circumstance, leave the NCT of Delhi,
without permission of the Trial Court, during the period of his release on
interim bail;
1
Amarawati v. State of U.P., 2004 SCC OnLine All 1112
BAIL APPLN. 998/2024 Page 3 of 5
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/04/2025 at 21:25:40
(b) The Applicant shall, during the period of his release, provide the
address where he would be residing, and shall not change the address
without informing the concerned IO/ SHO;
(c) The Applicant shall, upon his release, give his mobile number to the
concerned IO/SHO and shall keep his mobile phone switched on at all times;
(d) The Applicant shall not commit any offence during the period of his
release on interim bail;
(e) The Applicant shall report to the concerned P.S. once a week to mark
his attendance;
(f) The Applicant shall surrender before the concerned Jail
Superintendent, on 30th April, 2025.
11. In the event of there being any FIR/DD entry/complaint lodged
against the Applicant, it would be open to the State to seek redressal by
filing an application seeking cancellation of bail.
12. It is clarified that any observations made in the present order are for
the purpose of deciding the present application seeking interim bail and
should not influence the outcome of the trial and shall also not be taken as
an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
13. This order is rendered on the peculiar facts of the present case and
bail applications of the co-accused, if any, shall be evaluated on its own
merits.
14. The instant application is allowed in the afore-mentioned terms.
BAIL APPLN. 998/2024 Page 4 of 5
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/04/2025 at 21:25:40
BAIL APPLN. 998/2024
15. Renotify on 30th April, 2025.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
APRIL 15, 2025/as
BAIL APPLN. 998/2024 Page 5 of 5
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/04/2025 at 21:25:40