Delhi High Court
Rahul @ Moni @ Sannothiya vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 20 May, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 5th May, 2025
Pronounced on: 20th May, 2025
+ BAIL APPLN. 3129/2024
RAHUL @ MONI @ SANNOTHIYA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jitender Sethi, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Hemant Gulati, Mr. Shobit
Demri, Mr. Keshav Sethi, Advocates.
versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the
State with Insp. Vikas Mudgal, PS
Mukherjee Nagar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV NARULA, J.:
1. The present application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 19731 seeks regular bail in FIR no. 566/2018 for offence under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602 registered at PS: Mukherjee
Nagar. Subsequently, chargesheet was filed under Sections 307/302/120-
B/109 read with Sections 114/115 of the IPC and 25/27 of the Arms Act,
1959.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution, is as follows:
1
“CrPC”
2
“IPC”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH BAIL APPLN. 3129/2024 Page 1 of 11
Signing Date:20.05.2025
20:17:48
2.1 On 10th October 2018, at approximately 9:40 PM, a PCR call was
received at Police Station Mukherjee Nagar reporting a gunshot incident
near Dheerpur, in the vicinity of Sisodia Tent House. The information was
recorded vide DD No. 64-A and was assigned to Sub-Inspector Prempal for
inquiry and necessary action.
2.2 SI Prempal, accompanied by other police personnel, reached the scene
of crime. They were informed that the injured individual had been taken to
BJRM Hospital, Jahangir Puri. At the hospital, he obtained the MLC of
Shyam Sunder, who had been declared dead during treatment.
2.3 The crime scene was examined and photographed by the Crime Team.
One live cartridge and one spent cartridge were recovered from the scene
and seized through a seizure memo. No eyewitnesses were located either at
the hospital or at the spot. Based on the DD entry, an FIR was registered,
and investigation was formally initiated.
2.4 On 11th October 2018, a post-mortem examination of the deceased,
Shyam Sunder, was conducted. Exhibits handed over by the autopsy surgeon
were seized through a seizure memo. Eyewitness Parvesh @ Bhola was
examined and his statement under Section 161 CrPC was recorded. In his
statement, he identified the assailants as Rahul @ Khera, Sonu @ Sam,
Kamlesh, and Rahul @ Ganni, all of whom were known to him.
2.5 On 12th October 2018, accused Sonu @ Sam and Rahul @ Ganni
were apprehended. Their disclosure statements were recorded, and pointing-
out memos were prepared at their instance.
2.6 During interrogation, Rahul @ Ganni disclosed that Parvesh @ Bhola
owed him a sum of INR 2.5 lakhs, which he had repeatedly demanded but
remained unpaid. In September 2018, Rahul @ Ganni, along with the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH BAIL APPLN. 3129/2024 Page 2 of 11
Signing Date:20.05.2025
20:17:48
Petitioner (Rahul @ Moni) and others had visited Bhola’s residence and
issued threats. Despite repeated demands, no payment was made.
2.7 On 10th October 2018, all the aforementioned individuals gathered at
Bhagwan Park, Burari, where they conspired to commit the offence, with
Rahul @ Ganni, assuring monetary compensation to each participant as part
of the agreement. It was decided that Sonu @ Sam, Kamlesh, and Rahul @
Moni (Petitioner) would confront Parvesh @ Bhola at his residence to
demand repayment. In the event of refusal, Bhola was to be killed. It was
further agreed that anyone attempting to intervene would also be eliminated.
Further, it was agreed that Rahul @ Ganni and Pramod @ Pehlwan were to
remain absent from the scene.
2.8 Acting on the plan, the three accused reached Bhola’s residence. A
confrontation ensued, and when the deceased tried to intervene, he was shot
by the Petitioner. The Petitioner also allegedly fired at Bhola, who managed
to escape unhurt.
2.9 On 15th October 2018, accused Kamlesh was arrested. His disclosure
statement was recorded, and a pointing-out memo was prepared at his
instance.
2.10 On 24th October 2018, the Petitioner was arrested in a separate Arms
Act case. During interrogation, he disclosed that the weapon recovered from
him was used in the commission of the offence in the present case. He was
formally arrested in connection with the current FIR, and his statement was
recorded, wherein he confessed to having fired upon both the deceased and
Parvesh @ Bhola at the latter’s residence in Dheerpur. A pointing-out memo
was also prepared at his instance.
2.11 The exhibits recovered during investigation were sent to the Forensic
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH BAIL APPLN. 3129/2024 Page 3 of 11
Signing Date:20.05.2025
20:17:48
Science Laboratory (FSL), Rohini, Delhi for ballistic examination. The PCR
call form was collected. Certified copies of the Call Detail Records and
CAFs pertaining to the mobile numbers of the accused were obtained. The
CDR analysis established the presence and connectivity of the accused
persons with each other and their location at the scene of crime at the
relevant time. As regards the Petitioner, it was established that mobile
number xxxxxxx954 was registered in his name and was being used by him
at the time of the incident. Although the mobile handset was not recovered,
the accused disclosed during interrogation that it had been destroyed after
the incident. The CDR details of the said number corroborate the
Petitioner’s proximity to other co-accused before and after the occurrence of
the offence. Moreover, the eyewitness had also identified the Petitioner as
one of the assailants.
2.12 As per the ballistic report, the deformed bullet recovered from the
deceased’s body had been fired from the weapon recovered from the
Petitioner, thereby establishing a forensic link to the offence.
2.13 The Petitioner has also been previously implicated in four other
criminal cases, namely: FIR No. 203/2017 under Section 379 IPC, P.S.
Kanjhawla; FIR No. 183/2013 under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 of the
Arms Act, P.S. Timarpur; FIR No. 487/2012 under Section 307 IPC and
Section 27 Arms Act, P.S. Khajuri Khas; and FIR No. 264/2018 under
Section 25 Arms Act, P.S. Crime Branch, Delhi.
2.14 Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed against all
the accused persons and the matter is currently pending trial before the
competent court.
2.15 A total of 39 prosecution witnesses have been cited in the present
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH BAIL APPLN. 3129/2024 Page 4 of 11
Signing Date:20.05.2025
20:17:48
case, out of which 22 witnesses have been examined thus far.
3. Mr. Jitender Sethi, Senior Advocate representing the Petitioner, urges
the following grounds for seeking bail:
3.1 The Applicant has been falsely implicated. There is no direct evidence
linking him to the incident. The prosecution’s case hinges primarily on the
testimony of the alleged eyewitness, Parvesh @ Bhola (PW-7), who failed to
support the prosecution version during his examination before the Trial
Court and did not identify the Petitioner in court.
3.2. All co-accused persons namely Rahul @ Ganni, Sonu @ Sam,
Pramod @Pehalwan and Kamlesh Kumar have been granted bail. Rahul @
Ganni, according to the prosecution, is the main accused with a motive to
extort money from Pravesh @ Bholu and allegedly held a grudge against
him. Given that the allegations against the Petitioner are not graver in degree
than those against the co-accused, he is entitled to parity in the matter of
bail.
3.3. The prosecution’s reliance on Call Detail Records (CDRs) of mobile
number xxxxxxx954, allegedly used by the Petitioner, to place him at the
scene or in communication with co-accused, is insufficient in the absence of
corroborative evidence. Particularly, when the sole eyewitness has failed to
identify the Petitioner, CDR evidence, by itself, is not determinative. In this
regard, it is noteworthy that while granting bail to co-accused Rahul @
Ganni, this Court has already observed that the evidentiary weight of CDR
and location data must be evaluated during trial.
3.4. The Petitioner has been granted interim bail on 3 separate occasions
and has never misused the liberty granted. There is no adverse report against
the Petitioner during this period.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH BAIL APPLN. 3129/2024 Page 5 of 11
Signing Date:20.05.2025
20:17:48
3.5. The Petitioner has remained in custody since 27th October, 2018. Over
nearly six years, only 22 out of 39 prosecution witnesses have been
examined, reflecting minimal progress in the trial. The prolonged pre-trial
incarceration violates the Petitioner’s fundamental right to a speedy trial
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, warranting his release on bail.
3.6. The alleged recovery of the pistol from the Petitioner occurred on 22nd
October 2018, over 10 days after the date of the incident. While the ballistic
report later linked the recovered weapon to the bullet extracted from the
deceased, there is no explanation offered regarding the weapon’s custody
during the intervening period. No material evidence has been placed on
record to show that the Petitioner retained possession of the weapon during
that time, nor is there any ocular or forensic proof to establish that he fired
the fatal shot. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Pancho v. State of Haryana,3 where, in a similar factual scenario involving
delayed recovery, the Court found the evidence unreliable and acquitted the
accused.
3.7. Furthermore, the ballistic report connecting the weapon to the bullet
was issued only after nearly 10 months, on 08 th September 2019. There is no
evidence on record indicating where the said weapon was kept during this
entire period or in whose custody it remained. Such unexplained delay and
lack of proper custody cast serious doubt on the integrity of the
prosecution’s case. In similar circumstances, the Supreme Court in Baldev
Singh v. State.4 has held that such evidence, in the absence of clear custody
and chain of possession, is not sufficient for conviction.
3
AIR 2012 SC 523
4
AIR 1991 SC 31
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH BAIL APPLN. 3129/2024 Page 6 of 11
Signing Date:20.05.2025
20:17:48
4. Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State, strongly opposes the bail
contending that the allegations against the Petitioner are of a grave and
serious nature and are supported by substantial scientific and forensic
evidence. He submits that the case of the Petitioner stands on a different
footing from that of the co-accused who have been granted bail. In
particular, he points out that the firearm used in the commission of the
offence was recovered from the Petitioner, and this fact materially
distinguishes his role from the others. Mr. Kumar further distinguishes the
case of Pancho,5 relied upon by the Petitioner, by arguing that the delay in
recovery of the weapon in the present case is limited to ten days from the
date of incident, whereas in Pancho, the recovery was effected nearly six
months later. Therefore, the proximity of the recovery in the present case
lends credibility to the prosecution’s version and militates against the grant
of bail.
Analysis
5. It is noted that co-accused persons, including the main accused
namely Rahul @Ganni, at whose instance the alleged conspiracy was
orchestrated, have already been granted bail. The principle of parity
necessitates that similarly placed accused should receive similar treatment,
barring any distinguishing factors. While the prosecution contends that the
recovery of the weapon from the Petitioner distinguishes his case, it is
necessary to assess the evidentiary value of such recovery, particularly in
view of the Supreme Court’s decision in Pancho, which dealt with the
delayed recovery of a weapon of offence.
5
AIR 2012 SC 523
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH BAIL APPLN. 3129/2024 Page 7 of 11
Signing Date:20.05.2025
20:17:48
6. In the present case, the weapon in question was recovered more than
ten days after the incident. In Pancho, the Supreme Court held that
unexplained delay in recovery of a weapon weakens the probative value of
such evidence. Though the delay in recovery in the present case may be
comparatively shorter as compared to the case in Pancho, it nonetheless
casts a shadow on the conclusiveness of the alleged recovery. The
evidentiary value of such recovery, the uninterrupted chain of custody
between the date of the incident and the date of seizure, the integrity of the
seizure process, and the forensic linkage of the weapon, are matters that
must be scrutinised at the stage of trial. At the present stage, the Court is not
required to undertake such a detailed evidentiary analysis. What is relevant,
however, is whether such recovery is sufficient to deny bail, especially when
the main conspirator and other co-accused have already been enlarged on
bail. In the Court’s view, the alleged recovery, while forming part of the
prosecution’s narrative, is not of such conclusive weight at this stage as to
disentitle the Petitioner from relief on the grounds of parity.
7. The prosecution also relies on CDRs of mobile number xxxxxxx954
to establish the Petitioner’s presence at the crime scene and his association
with the co-accused. However, CDRs alone, absent corroboration,
particularly when the sole eyewitness Parvesh @ Bhola (PW-7) has resiled
from his previous statements and failed to identify the accused in Court, do
not justify prolonged custody. This Court, while granting bail to Rahul @
Ganni, has already observed that the evidentiary relevance of location and
CDR data is a matter for trial, not pre-trial incarceration.
8. Moreover, the Supreme Court has consistently held that prolonged
pre-trial detention infringes upon the fundamental right to a speedy trial
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH BAIL APPLN. 3129/2024 Page 8 of 11
Signing Date:20.05.2025
20:17:48
under Article 21 of the Constitution. In Tapas Kumar Palit v. State of
Chhattisgarh,6 the Supreme Court granted bail to the accused, emphasizing
that detaining an undertrial for an extended period, specifically six to seven
years, without reaching a verdict violates the fundamental right to a speedy
trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court underscored that,
regardless of the seriousness of the alleged offense, prolonged incarceration
without conclusion of the trial infringes upon the accused’s constitutional
rights, thereby warranting consideration for bail. In the present matter, the
Petitioner has been in judicial custody since 27 th October 2018, amounting
to over six years of pre-trial detention. Of the 39 prosecution witnesses, only
22 have been examined to date, reflecting a delayed pace in the trial
proceedings. A report from the office of the Principal District and Sessions
Judge, North Rohini Courts, attributes the delays to several factors: the
unavailability of ballistic and FSL results, pending sanction under Section
39 of the Arms Act, non-availability of public witnesses during the
prosecution evidence stage, non-production of the accused from judicial
custody, and instances where the presiding officer was on leave. The report
further indicates that 16 prosecution witnesses remain to be examined.
Additionally, statements under Section 313 of the CrPC for all five accused
are yet to be recorded, and the accused may choose to lead defence
evidence. The trial, by all estimates, may take at least another one and a half
years to conclude.
9. As regards the Petitioner’s prior antecedents, it is pertinent to note
that the Petitioner’s brother namely Mr. Uday Prakash, has submitted an
affidavit affirming that the Petitioner has neither been summoned nor
6
2025 INSC 222
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH BAIL APPLN. 3129/2024 Page 9 of 11
Signing Date:20.05.2025
20:17:48
charge-sheeted in connection with FIR No. 203/2017, registered at Police
Station Kanjhawala. With respect to FIR Nos. 183/2017 and 487/2012, the
Petitioner has already been granted bail. Furthermore, it is submitted that
FIR No. 264/2018 arises as a consequence of the present case. Nonetheless,
it is well-settled that mere pendency of criminal cases against the accused
cannot be the sole ground for denying bail.7
10. It is also relevant to note that the Petitioner was granted interim bail
on multiple occasions during the pendency of the trial and complied with all
conditions imposed upon him, including timely surrender upon expiry of
such interim relief. No report of misuse or breach of bail conditions has been
brought on record by the prosecution. This conduct indicates that the
Petitioner does not pose a flight risk, nor has he attempted to interfere with
the judicial process or influence witnesses during the period when he was
not in custody.
11. In view of the foregoing, the Court is inclined to enlarge the Petitioner
on bail. The Petitioner is, therefore, directed to be released on bail on
furnishing a personal bond for a sum of ₹25,000/- with one surety of the like
amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Metropolitan
Magistrate/ Jail Superintendent, on the following conditions:
(a) The Petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or
tamper with the evidence of the case, in any manner whatsoever;
(b) The Petitioner shall under no circumstance leave the country without
the permission of the Trial Court;
(c) The Petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court as and when
7
Prabhakar Tiwari Vs. State of UP 2020 11 SCC 648Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH BAIL APPLN. 3129/2024 Page 10 of 11
Signing Date:20.05.2025
20:17:48
directed;
(d) The Petitioner shall provide the address where he would be residing
after his release and shall not change the address without informing the
concerned IO/ SHO;
(e) The Petitioner shall, upon his release, give his mobile number to the
concerned IO/SHO and shall keep his mobile phone switched on at all times.
12. In the event of there being any FIR/DD entry/complaint lodged
against the Petitioner, it would be open to the State to seek redressal by
filing an application seeking cancellation of bail.
13. It is clarified that any observations made in the present order are for
the purpose of deciding the present bail application and should not influence
the outcome of the trial and should also not be taken as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case.
14. The bail application is allowed and disposed of in the afore-mentioned
terms.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
MAY 20, 2025/ab
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH BAIL APPLN. 3129/2024 Page 11 of 11
Signing Date:20.05.2025
20:17:48
