BAIL APPLN. 3232/2026 $~79 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010366552026 + BAIL APPLN. 3232/2026 & CRL.M.A. 24276/2026 PRAVEEN KHATRI@ MONI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. CM Sangwan, Mr. Saksham Aggarwal, Advocates. versus THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP with Mr. Narendra Kumar, Advocate. Insp Vinay Kumar. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 11.08.2026 1. By way of the present petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”], the petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with FIR No. 219/2025, dated 27.04.2025, under Sections 110/126(2)/324(4)/351(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [“BNS”], lodged at Police Station Alipur, District Outer (North), Delhi. 2. I have heard Mr. CM Sangwan, learner counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chahuhan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 3. The prosecution case, as it emerges from the material on record, is as follows: a. The FIR was registered on the complaint of one Praveen Kumar 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 14/08/2026 at 11:25:53 BAIL APPLN. 3232/2026 Gupta, who alleged that on 26.04.2025, while travelling from his office to his residence in his car, he was wrongfully restrained, assaulted with iron rods and sticks, threatened by a group of assailants, and was robbed of Rs. 2,00,000/- in cash, and his gold chain. It is further alleged that the complainant was dragged out of his car and beaten on the road causing him multiple injuries including fractures, as well as prolonged medical treatement. b. The Medico-Legal Case [“MLC”] of the complainant-injured was obtained, which recorded the nature of injuries as “grievous”. c. The investigation revealed that the said incident was not an isolated incident, but part of continuing criminal conspiracy involving land- grabbing and extortion in the areas of Alipur, Narela and surrounding localities. The complainant-injured had earlier registered another FIR [No. 502/204, at P.S. Alipur] against one Praveen Lakra and associates for extortion and criminal intimidation. In order to pressurize the complainant to withdraw the earlier FIR, the said incident was orchestrated. d. Two co-accused, being Praveen Lakra and Narender Khatri, are stated to be absconding. e. During the course of investigation, CCTV footage collected from multiple locations established that the complainant-injured was continuously followed by two vehicles prior to the assault, being Hyundai Venus and Thar. f. One of the assailants, being Ravinder @ Ravi, was apprehended. He subsequently disclosed the involvement of the present petitioner as the main conspirator, and one of the assailants 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 14/08/2026 at 11:25:53 BAIL APPLN. 3232/2026 involved in the attack. It was disclosed that the petitioner had directed co-accused Ravinder to keep surveillance on the complainant’s movement, received real-time updates through WhatsApp calls, coordinated the interception of the complainant’s vehicle, and actively participated in the assault. g. The petitioner was arrested on 07.05.2025. h. The petitioner has been specifically identified as one of the assailants, who was present at the spot and took part in the assault. The presence of the petitioner at the spot at the relevant time was further corroborated by analysis of the Call Data Records and the Internet Protocol Detail Record. i. During further investigation, the abovementioned Hyundai Venus vehicle has been recovered at the instance of the petitioner. j. The petitioner is stated to be a trusted executor of principal accused Praveen Lakra. k. The petitioner is stated to be a habitual offender, who has been involved in three previous FIRs, which are as follows: i. FIR No. 677/2013 at P.S. Alipur, under Sections 308/34 of IPC. ii. FIR No. 460/2014 at P.S. Alipur, under Sections 307/34 IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959. iii. FIR No. 354/2025, at P.S. Narela, under Sections 110/115(2)/3(5) of BNS. l. The chargesheet in the present proceedings stands filed, and the matter is pending at framing of charge. 4. The latest bail application filed by the petitioner before the 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 14/08/2026 at 11:25:53 BAIL APPLN. 3232/2026 Sessions Court was dismissed vide order dated 23.07.2026 on account of active involvement of the petitioner, previous involvements, possibility of influencing witnesses, rejection of the argument on parity with co- accused, and no change in circumstance since dismissal of last bail application. 5. Mr. Sangwan submits that the petitioner has been implicated solely on the basis of the disclosure statement of a co-accused. He further submits that the investigation qua the petitioner stands concluded and the chargesheet has already been filed. He submits that the petitioner has remained in judicial custody for over 1 year and 3 months. He points out that, although the prosecution has cited 28 witnesses, the matter is still pending at the stage of framing of charges, and there is no likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future. Mr. Sangwan also seeks parity with co-accused Ravinder @ Ravi and Vikas Bhaker @ Vicky, who were granted regular bail by the learned Sessions Court vide orders dated 08.05.2025 and 02.07.2025, respectively. 6. Per contra, Mr. Chauhan submits that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He submits that the complainant sustained grievous injuries, including fractures, as corroborated by the MLC. He further submits that the petitioner actively participated in the commission of the offence, and the CDR/IPDR analysis places him at the scene of the crime at the relevant time. He also submits that one of the vehicles used in the commission of the offence was recovered at the instance of the petitioner. Mr. Chauhan submits that the petitioner's role is distinguishable from that of the co-accused who have been granted bail and the plea of parity is misconceived. He further submits that the 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 14/08/2026 at 11:25:53 BAIL APPLN. 3232/2026 petitioner has three previous criminal involvements. Lastly, Mr. Chauhan submits that the complainant-injured has not yet been examined, and there exists a reasonable apprehension of influencing witnesses. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this is not a fit case for grant of bail. 8. In the present case, the offences alleged are undoubtedly serious in nature, and the material placed on record prima facie discloses the active participation of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offences, having allegedly coordinated the movements of the co-accused, monitored the complainant's whereabouts, facilitated the interception of the complainant's vehicle, and actively participated in the assault. The same has been corroborated by the CDR/IPDR analysis, which places the petitioner at the scene of incident at the relevant time. Further, one of the vehicles allegedly used in the commission of the offence was recovered at the instance of the petitioner. The complainant is also stated to have sustained grievous injuries, including fractures, as corroborated by the MLC. 9. I do not find any merit in the plea of parity. The role attributed to the petitioner is distinguishable from that of co-accused Ravinder @ Ravi and Vikas Bhaker @ Vicky, who have been granted regular bail by the learned Sessions Court. Insofar as Ravinder @ Ravi is concerned, no allegation of assault or beating was attributed to him. As regards Vikas Bhaker @ Vicky, the prosecution did not possess any CCTV footage or CDR analysis connecting him with the offence. 10. It is also undisputed that the petitioner has three other criminal antecedents involving allegations of a similar nature, which is an 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 14/08/2026 at 11:25:53 BAIL APPLN. 3232/2026 additional factor weighing against the grant of bail. 11. The chargesheet in the present proceedings stands filed. However, the complainant-injured has not yet been examined. Having regard to the specific role attributed to the petitioner, his previous criminal involvements, and the apprehension expressed by the prosecution, the possibility of the petitioner influencing or intimidating witnesses, including the complainant, cannot be ruled out at this stage. 12. In view of the aforesaid, I am not persuaded that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail at this stage. 13. The present bail application, alongwith pending applications is, accordingly, dismissed. 14. It is clarified that the observations made herein are solely for the purpose of adjudication of the present bail applications, and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, nor shall they prejudice the rights and contentions of the parties at any stage of the proceedings. PRATEEK JALAN, J AUGUST 11, 2026 “B”/AD/ 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 14/08/2026 at 11:25:53