$~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 724/2026 & CRL.M.A. 5636/2026 LALIT @ CHETAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Nikhil Kumar Vats, Adv. versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for the State. Mr. Nitin kaushik, Adv. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 23.07.2026 1. The applicant seeks regular bail in connection with FIR No.777/2023 for the offence punishable under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 registered at police station Alipur, Delhi. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant matter. The applicant has already suffered about three years of incarceration. The charges have yet not been framed. Another co-accused person, namely, Sachin has already been enlarged on bail. There is no other criminal case pending against the applicant. 3. The application is opposed by learned counsel appearing for the State and the counsel appearing for the complainant. Both of them have contended that the applicant belongs to one Tillu Tajpuria Gang. When Tillu Tajpuria 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 25/07/2026 at 11:24:44 was killed in jail, his death was celebrated by one Gogi Gang and the injured belonged to Gogi Gang, therefore, the applicant allegedly caused injuries. 4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the record. 5. It remains undisputed that in the first statement given by the injured, namely, Piyush Mann, he did not name anyone. He, in supplementary statement, has stated that due to fear after sustaining gunshot injuries, he did not disclose the names of the assailants. He, however, disclosed the names of the accused persons as Rahul, Rohit @ Laddu, Chetan and stated that they belong to the Tillu Gang. The investigation was, thereafter, carried out and the chargesheet has been submitted, and the matter is still pending at the stage of framing of charges. 6. Co-accused-Sachin has already been enlarged on jail, vide order dated 15.07.2025. Paragraphs 17 to 21 of the order dated 15.07.2025 are extracted as under: “17. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned APP for the state and perused the record. It is the case of the prosecution that on the fateful day, while the victim, along with his friend, was returning home on a Scooty after completing his workout at a fitness gym, three co- accused persons, namely, Rahul, Rohit @ Laddu, and Chetan, intercepted them on a motorcycle. As soon as the victim stopped his Scooty, the co- accused Rohit and Chetan allegedly opened fire at him, causing him to fall to the ground. Thereafter, all three accused fled from the spot on the motorcycle. 18. The specific role attributed to the present petitioner is that he came running at the scene from Firni Road after the incident had already occurred and while the victim was lying on the road. The prosecution has alleged that the petitioner is a member of the Tillu Tajpuria gang. However, the petitioner did not open fire at the victim and he did not accompany the co-accused persons, who are alleged to be the main assailants for causing „dangerous gunshot injury‟ on the person of the victim and had left the place of incidence. Further, the weapon used in the commission of the offence was not recovered at the instance of the petitioner. 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 25/07/2026 at 11:24:44 19. The case of the prosecution is that upon the search of the petitioner, a country-made pistol (katta) and live cartridges were recovered; nonetheless, the same were not used in the commission of the offence. 20. The petitioner has no previous criminal involvement and has clean antecedents. The perusal of the Nominal Roll of the petitioner reveals that the petitioner is in custody since 13.11.2023 and his jail conduct appear to be “satisfactory”. 21. In conspectus of the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is admitted to Regular Bail in FIR No. 777/2023 dated 11.11.2023 for offences punishable under Section 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Alipur, Delhi on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/ CMM/ Duty Magistrate and further subject to the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall not leave the NCT of Delhi without prior permission of the learned Trial Court; (ii) The petitioner shall report at P.S. Alipur once a week i.e. every Wednesday at 04:00 PM for marking his presence; (iii) The petitioner shall intimate the learned Trial Court by way of an affidavit and to the Investigating Officer regarding any change of residential address; (iv) The petitioner shall appear before the learned Trial Court as and when the matter is taken up for hearing; (v) The petitioner is directed to give his mobile number to the Investigating Officer and keep it operational at all times; (vi) The petitioner shall not contact, nor visit, nor offer any inducement, threat or promise to any of the prosecution witnesses or other persons acquainted with the facts of the case; (vii) The petitioner shall also not tamper with the evidence nor otherwise indulge in any act or omission that is unlawful or that would prejudice the proceedings in the pending trial.” 7. The Supreme Court in Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.,1 has reiterated that the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is an exception, and that the presumption of innocence continues to operate until guilt is established in accordance with law. 8. The parameters governing the grant of bail have also been succinctly 1 (2018) 3 SCC 22 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 25/07/2026 at 11:24:44 laid down in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee,2 wherein the Supreme Court held that while considering an application for bail, the Court is required to balance the nature of the accusation, the severity of punishment, the possibility of the accused fleeing from justice, likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, antecedents of the accused and the overall interests of justice 9. The Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI,3 has further observed that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused during trial and that pre-trial detention should not assume a punitive character. These observations were expounded as follows: “21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.” 10. More recently, in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI,4 the Supreme Court has emphasised that prolonged incarceration pending trial, particularly where the trial is not likely to conclude within a reasonable period, has to be viewed in the light of the guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. 11. The applicant has already suffered about three years’ incarceration. and the matter is still pending at the stage of framing of charges. The trial will take sufficient time in its conclusion. The applicant has depicted 2 (2010) 14 SCC 496 3 (2012) 1 SCC 40 4 (2022) 10 SCC 51 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 25/07/2026 at 11:24:44 satisfactory conduct during his incarceration. He was enlarged on bail two times, and he has timely surrendered. 12. Though the role assigned to the present application is different, however, bearing in mind the long incarceration of about three years and no criminal antecedents, the Court is of the opinion that the applicant is entitled for grant of regular bail. 13. Therefore, it is directed that he be released on regular bail on such conditions as may be imposed by the concerned trial Court. 14. Application stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JULY 23, 2026/P/sa 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 25/07/2026 at 11:24:44