$~33 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010310042026 + BAIL APPLN. 2752/2026 SACHIN (IN JC) THROUGH PEROKAR MOTHER MUKESH RANITHROUGH PEROKAR MOTHER MUKESH RANI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Mr. Ankit Yadav, Advocates. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: ASI Jagpal along with complainant Rajesh. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 13.08.2026 1. The instant application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) read with Section 528 BNSS has been preferred by the applicant, Sachin, seeking regular bail in FIR No. 628/2025, dated 14.09.2025, registered at PS Narela, Delhi, for offences under Sections 109(1), 308(4), 61(2), 111(1), 317(2), 345(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’), read with Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The applicant assails the order dated 24.01.2026 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-04, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi, in SC No. 7162/2025, whereby his first application for regular bail came to be dismissed. 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 17/08/2026 at 10:57:29 2. As per the case of the prosecution, on 14.09.2025 at about 4:15 PM, the complainant, Rajesh Kaushik, a property dealer carrying on business under the name Jai Bhawani Buildcon at Narela, received a WhatsApp call from an unknown number demanding an extortion amount of ₹5 crores and threatening him with death within two days should the demand not be met. It is alleged that at about 4:18 PM on the same day, four persons, with faces partially covered, arrived at the complainant’s office on two motorcycles, abused and threatened him, and reiterated the extortion demand. One of the assailants is alleged to have displayed a 9 MM pistol, while another carried a sharp-edged glass object; upon the complainant offering resistance, he was assaulted with the glass object, sustaining injuries which, as per the MLC recorded at the hospital, were opined to be simple in nature. 3. During investigation, eleven persons were named as accused, including one Anurodh Tyagi @ Monu, alleged to be the mastermind of the extortion racket, and the present applicant, Sachin. It is the case of the prosecution that a sum of ₹12,000/- was transferred, through an online transaction, into the bank account of the applicant, allegedly at the instance of co-accused Anurodh Tyagi and through co-accused Vansh Malik, of which ₹8,000/- was thereafter withdrawn in cash and ₹4,000/- utilised online; and that the applicant remained in communication with certain co- accused persons through the Signal application. No recovery, whether of any weapon, cash or other incriminating article, has been effected from the applicant. The chargesheet in the matter has since been filed, and the applicant has remained in judicial custody since 29.09.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated, and that the sole allegation against him is the aforesaid 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 17/08/2026 at 10:57:29 banking transaction of ₹12,000/-, unaccompanied by any allegation that he participated in the extortion demand, arranged any weapon, remained present at the spot, or took part in the assault upon the complainant. It is submitted that the applicant’s own version is that he had, at the request of his friend and co-accused Sandeep @ Sunny @ Channi, facilitated a transfer of funds without any knowledge of its purported connection to the alleged offence, and that in the absence of any material establishing a prior meeting of minds, the ingredients of criminal conspiracy cannot be said to be prima facie satisfied. 5. It is further submitted that co-accused Sandeep @ Sunny @ Channi, the very person at whose instance the applicant is alleged to have acted, has already been granted regular bail, and that the applicant, whose role is no more extensive, is entitled to parity. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, that the investigation stands concluded and the chargesheet filed, and that the applicant has, as on date, remained in custody for over 11 months. 6. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the complainant, examined as PW-1, has since been recorded and has not supported the case of the prosecution. The complainant, Rajesh Kaushik, who appears before this Court in person, states that he has no objection to the grant of bail to the applicant. 7. The submissions on behalf of the applicant are opposed by learned APP for the State, who submits that the allegations are serious in nature, having regard to the invocation of Section 111 BNS and the involvement of a firearm, and that the role attributed to the applicant, being that of an active participant in the criminal conspiracy who received and dealt with proceeds 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 17/08/2026 at 10:57:29 connected with the offence, cannot be equated with that of co-accused Sandeep @ Sunny @ Channi. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, the complainant in person, and have perused the record. 1. The parameters governing the grant of regular bail in non-bailable offences are well settled. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee1, the Supreme Court held as follows: “9. …It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail…” 2. The object underlying the grant of bail was authoritatively explained by the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation2, in the following terms: “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 can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon.” 3. The Supreme Court has consistently reiterated that bail is the rule and jail the exception. In Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.3, it was observed that the grant of bail must be exercised in a judicious and compassionate manner, having regard to the presumption of innocence that attaches to every accused until guilt is established in accordance with law 4. The duration of incarceration and the likely progress of the trial are 1 (2010) 14 SCC 496. 2 (2012) 1 SCC 40. 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 17/08/2026 at 10:57:29 also material considerations at the stage of bail, and cannot be treated as subordinate merely because the offence alleged is a grave one. In State of Kerala v. Raneef4, the Supreme Court held: “15. In deciding bail applications an important factor which should certainly be taken into consideration by the court is the delay in concluding the trial. Often this takes several years, and if the accused is denied bail but is ultimately acquitted, who will restore so many years of his life spent in custody?” 9. Insofar as the effect of a material witness turning hostile is concerned, it is well settled that the hostility of a witness does not ipso facto efface the case of the prosecution, and that such deposition continues to form part of the evidentiary record to be appreciated at the stage of final adjudication. At the same time, the fact that the complainant himself has turned hostile has been recognised as a circumstance worth consideration at the stage of regular bail. 10. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, it is significant that the complainant, Rajesh Kaushik, examined as PW-1, is the sole eye-witness to the alleged extortion demand and the assault upon him, and it is he who has, upon examination, not supported the case of the prosecution. He has, in addition, appeared before this Court in person and stated that he has no objection to the applicant being enlarged on bail. While the trial Court will, at the stage of final adjudication, bear in mind the entirety of the evidence that the prosecution may yet adduce, including the testimony of the remaining witnesses, the hostility of the principal witness at this stage materially dilutes the prima facie threshold contemplated in 3 (2018) 3 SCC 22. 4 (2011) 1 SCC 784. 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 17/08/2026 at 10:57:29 Prasanta Kumar Sarkar (supra), insofar as the case against the present applicant is concerned. 11. It further emerges from the record that ten of the eleven named accused persons, including the alleged mastermind, are yet to be arrested, and that co-accused Sandeep @ Sunny @ Channi, at whose instance the applicant is alleged to have acted, has already been enlarged on bail. Having regard to the number of witnesses remaining to be examined and the number of accused persons yet to be apprehended, the trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future. The applicant has, in the meanwhile, remained in custody for over 11 months. These circumstances, read cumulatively with the hostility of PW-1 and the limited role attributed to the applicant, weigh in favour of the grant of bail, consistent with the principles enunciated in Sanjay Chandra and Raneef (supra). 12. Accordingly, the present applicant is directed to be released on regular bail subject to such conditions as may be imposed by the concerned Trial Court. 13. The application stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J AUGUST 13, 2026 aks 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 17/08/2026 at 10:57:29