$~27 & 17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010331272026 + BAIL APPLN. 2936/2026 RUCHIN AHLAWAT .....Petitioner Through: Appearance not given. versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for the State. SI Lovkesh Kumar, PS: Narela. Complainant Rajesh Kaushik in person. 17 # CNR No. DLHC010234462026 + BAIL APPLN. 2017/2026 KUNAL TYAGI .....Petitioner Through: Appearance not given. versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for the State. SI Lovkesh Kumar, PS: Narela. Complainant Rajesh Kaushik in person. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 19.08.2026 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 21/08/2026 at 11:27:03 1. By way of the present applications, the applicants seeks regular bail in connection with FIR No. 385/2025 for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 109(1), 308(4), 61(2), 111(1), 345(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 registered at Police Station Narela, Delhi. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated. Their role is stated to be similar to that assigned to co-accused Sandeep @ Sunny @ Channi and Sachin, who have already been granted bail by the Trial Court and this Court, respectively. It is further contended that Kunal Tyagi has undergone almost 10 months and Ruchin Ahlawat almost 9 months of incarceration; the chargesheet has been filed and nothing remains to be recovered from them. The complainant has already been examined and declared hostile. It is thus urged that, considering parity and the stage of the trial, no useful purpose would be served by their further incarceration. 3. The aforesaid submissions are opposed by Ms. Shubhi Gupta and Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, learned APP for the State, contending that the applicants were actively involved in a well-organised criminal conspiracy relating to the alleged firing and extortion. It is submitted that the investigation has revealed their role in facilitating the commission of the offence through financial transactions and other logistical support, and that their release may prejudice the trial, including by influencing witnesses or evading the process of law. It is, therefore, prayed that the present applications be dismissed. 4. Mr. Rajesh Kaushik, the complainant, is also present and reiterates 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 21/08/2026 at 11:27:03 that he has no objection to the present bail applications. 5. The Court has considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties. 6. The facts of the present case would indicate that an incident of firing took place at the office of Jagmal, during which the complainant Rajesh Kaushik sustained injuries. The prosecution case further is that the said incident was part of a larger conspiracy involving an extortion demand of Rs. 5 crores and was allegedly executed by a number of accused persons acting in concert. During investigation, it was alleged that the offence was planned and carried out through coordinated financial and logistical assistance, leading to the arrest of several accused persons, including the present applicants. 7. The allegations against Ruchin Ahlawat are dealt with in detail by the prosecuting agency in para 12 onwards of the status report. It is alleged that the present applicant arranged a motorcycle through co-accused Aashish Tyagi @ Kala, who is the applicant in connected bail application no.2017/2026. Paras 12 to 17 of the Status report is extracted as under: “12. During interrogation, the applicant disclosed that he had come Into contact with wanted accused Naveen Dabas @ Jora @ Alex @ Pardhan through the Signal App. Naveen Dabas informed him about the plan to carry out firing and extortion and instructed him to transfer money to bank accounts specified by him. In return, he promised the applicant a payment of Rs. 10 lakhs. He also disclosed that co-accused Anurodh Tyagi @ Monu was aware of the conspiracy. Investigation revealed that the applicant transferred money online from his Canara Bank Account No. 5524101000044 and 1(1(1 Bank Account No. 372605500215 (Adhiraj Trades) to the accounts specified by Naveen Dabas, namely: - Axis Bank Account 'No. 923010043343365 in the name of Anurodh Tyagi; and - Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank Account No. 818519000226682 In the name of Kunal Tyagi. 13. These transactions have been corroborated through the bank 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 21/08/2026 at 11:27:03 statements collected during investigation 14. The applicant disclosed that Naveen Dabas had sent Motorcycle No. DL-11SY-8537, grey colour Apache, to him. The applicant subsequently delivered the said motorcycle to co-accused Anurodh Tyagi @ Monu. 15. The investigation further revealed that the motorcycle was arranged through co-accused Ashish Tyagi @ Kala and Kunal Tyagi and was delivered to the shooters, namely Dinesh, Sourav, and Akshay, near the liquor vend on Chotala Road, Panipat. The said motorcycle was used in the commission of the present offence. 16. The motorcycle has been recovered during investigation. The motorcycle number was found mentioned in the PCR call records. Upon verification, its actual registration number was found to be DL3SDL4236, which was a stolen vehicle connected with E-FIR No. 26052/2025 under Section 305(b) BNS, Police Station Shaheen Bagh, Delhi. The accused persons were using a fake number plate on the said motorcycle. 17. The investigation further revealed that Naveen Dabas had sent a blue bag containing three pistols to co-accused Anurodh Tyagi @ Monu. On the instructions of Naveen Dabas, the said firearms were delivered through Ashish Tyagi and Kunal Tyagi to the shooters near the bridge adjacent to Jindal University, where the motorcycle had also been delivered.” 8. Besides the aforesaid, it is also contended by way of the Status Report that, at the instance of accused Naveen Dabas @ Jora @ Alex @ Pardhan, the applicant transferred certain amounts to other co-accused persons in furtherance of the alleged offence. 9. Similarly, with respect to Kunal Tyagi, the role is scribed by the State in paras. 12 to 15 of the Status Report, which are extracted as under: “12. During investigation, accused Kunal Tyagi 5/0 Rajesh Tyagi, R/o Village Jhamba, PO Bapoli, PS Sanoli, District Panipat, Haryana, aged about 22 years, was arrested. During interrogation, he disclosed that he had come into contact with co-accused Anurodh Tyagi @ Monu and had actively participated in the execution of the criminal conspiracy. 13. The applicant disclosed that, on the instructions of co-accused Anurodh Tyagi @ Monu, he, along with co-accused Ashish Tyagl @ Kala, brought Motorcycle No. DL-11 SY-8537, grey colour Apache, from the Sonali Khurd Bypass, Panipat, and kept the said motorcycle at the residence of co-accused Anurodh Tyagi @ Monu. 14. The investigation further revealed that the applicant, along with co- accused Ashish Tyagi @ Kala, travelled on motorcycle No. DL-3SFE-8938 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 21/08/2026 at 11:27:03 (Jawa) and, on the instructions of Anurodh Tyagi @ Manu, delivered Motorcycle No. DL-11 SY-8537 and two helmets to the shooters, namely Dinesh, Sourav @ Gaurav, and Hemant @ Akshay, at Panipat. The said motorcycle was used in the commission of the present offence. 15. The applicant further disclosed that, along with co-accused Ashish Tyagi @ Kala, he collected a blue bag containing three pistols from the house of Anurodh Tyagi @ Monu and delivered the same to the shooters near the bridge adjacent to Jindal University. The said firearms were used by the shooters in the commission of the present offence.” 10. The Court, however, finds that the alleged shooters are Dinesh, Sourav and Akshay. The present applicants are alleged to have acted in connivance with the other accused persons in the commission of the aforesaid offence. As per the Status Report, Rajesh Kaushik had seen two assailants on a motorcycle, with the pillion rider allegedly firing repeatedly towards him with the intention to kill him. However, the injuries sustained by Rajesh Kaushik were not grievous. Further, Mr. Rajesh Kaushik, who is personally present before the Court, has expressed ignorance regarding the identity of the person who had actually fired at him. 11. The Court further notes that the investigation stands completed and the chargesheet has already been filed. The complainant, who is stated to be a material witness and is also present before this Court, has expressed no objection to the grant of bail to the present applicants. The applicants have also undergone substantial periods of incarceration. Further, the role attributed to the present applicants is required to be considered in the backdrop of the fact that the alleged firing is attributed to the aforesaid shooters, while co-accused Sandeep @ Sunny @ Channi and Sachin, whose cases are stated to be similarly placed, have already been enlarged on bail. 12. The Supreme Court in Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.,1 has reiterated 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 21/08/2026 at 11:27:03 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. 13. The parameters governing the grant of bail have also been succinctly 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. 14. 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.” 15. Bearing in mind the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and also the fact that co-accused Sandeep @ Sunny @ Channi and Sachin have already been enlarged on bail by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 19.01.2026 and by this Court vide order dated 13.08.2026 in Bail Appln. 2 (2010) 14 SCC 496. 3 (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 21/08/2026 at 11:27:03 2752/2026, respectively. The Court is of the opinion that the applicants are entitled for grant of regular bail. 16. With respect to the other criminal cases registered against the applicants under the Arms Act, it is contended that the same have been falsely planted after the incident in question. This Court is not, at this stage, examining the veracity of the said contention. However, the mere pendency of the said cases, particularly when they are stated to have arisen subsequent to the incident in question, cannot by itself be a ground to deny the applicants the concession of regular bail. 17. With the aforesaid observations, the applicants are directed to be released on regular bail on such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the concerned trial Court. 18. Applications stand disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J AUGUST 19, 2026/P 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 21/08/2026 at 11:27:03