$~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010381822026 + BAIL APPLN. 3369/2026 WASEEM @ AYUB .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sulaiman Mohd. Khan, Ms. Taiba Khan, Mr. M. M. Khan, Mr. Bhanu Malhotra, Mr. Gopeshwar Singh Chandel, Mr. Abdul Bari Khan, Mr. Yash Vardhan Mittal and Mr. Ranjeet Singh, Advocates. versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for the State. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 15.09.2026 1. The instant application has been filed on behalf of the applicant under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), seeking grant of regular bail in relation to FIR No. 570/2024, registered at Police Station Farsh Bazar, Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1)/109(1)/351(3)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [‘BNS’], and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959. 2. Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that there is no evidence against the applicant except the statement of Mohd. Khalid. Taking this Court through the charge-sheet, it is submitted that the prosecution case has 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 17/09/2026 at 11:16:40 undergone different versions, inasmuch as, in the initial investigation, one Asif was shown to be involved in the commission of the offence, and it was only later, on the basis of the statement of Mohd. Khalid, that the name of the present applicant surfaced. It is further submitted that the applicant has already undergone incarceration of one year, three months and twenty days, as on 14.06.2026; that he was granted interim bail on different occasions and never misused the liberty so granted; and that he has been granted regular bail in the five other cases pending against him. It is contended that, as the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail. 3. The submissions are opposed by the APP for the State, who contends that two persons, namely, Aakash Sharma and Rishabh Sharma, have lost their lives in the incident, and that the son of Aakash Sharma, namely, Krish Sharma, has been seriously injured. It is submitted that, although the shooter, Sonu @ Matka, has since been killed in an encounter by the Special Cell of the Delhi Police, the complicity of the applicant cannot be disputed, his role having surfaced during the course of the investigation, and the charges being yet to be framed. It is submitted that, having regard to the overall gravity of the offence, in which two persons have died and one has been injured, the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on regular bail. 4. I have considered the submissions made by counsel appearing for the parties and have also perused the record. 5. As per the prosecution case, on 31.10.2024, a PCR call was received regarding a firing incident at Bihari Colony, Shahdara, Delhi, which led to the registration of the present FIR. The investigation revealed that the co- accused, Lakshya Sharma, had procured the shooter, Sonu @ Matka, owing 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 17/09/2026 at 11:16:40 to a previous enmity. Sonu @ Matka is alleged to have caused gunshot injuries to Aakash Sharma, Rishabh Sharma and Krish Sharma, which resulted in the death of Aakash Sharma and Rishabh Sharma. 6. During the investigation, the statements of various persons were recorded. The statement of Mohd. Khalid, who has named the present applicant, assumes significance. According to his statement, he runs a shop by the name of B.K. Fashion Club, and has known the applicant for the last four to five years. He states that, about a year earlier, the applicant had introduced Sonu @ Matka to him and had asked him to inform the applicant whenever Sonu @ Matka visited the shop; that Sonu @ Matka used to visit his shop at intervals of two to three months, and that he would accordingly inform the applicant. He further states that, on 20.10.2024, prior to the incident, Sonu @ Matka came to his shop to meet the applicant, and that the two remained in a meeting for about two to three hours; and that, on 31.10.2024, the date of the incident, Sonu @ Matka came to the shop on a red-and-black ‘Apache’ motorcycle and, after the applicant had been informed, the applicant arrived in a black ‘Scorpio’, whereupon both are stated to have left the shop, the incident having occurred later that day. On being shown the video of the firing, Mohd. Khalid identified the person firing as Sonu @ Matka. 7. The aforesaid circumstances, taken together with the statement of Mohd. Khalid, prima facieindicates the complicity of the applicant, who appears to have accompanied Sonu @ Matka to the spot. There is, further, material to indicate that the Scorpio in question, though owned by another person, was being used by the applicant, as is borne out by the statement of Naushad Ansari. 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 17/09/2026 at 11:16:40 8. The principles governing the grant of bail have been succinctly summarised by the Supreme Court in Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.,1Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee,2Sanjay Chandra v. CBI3, and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI,4 wherein it has been consistently held that the grant of bail is the rule and its refusal the exception; that the presumption of innocence continues until conviction; and that the object of bail is to secure the presence of the accused during the trial without subjecting him to unnecessary pre-trial incarceration. 9. At the same time, the power to grant bail under Section 483 of the BNSS (erstwhile Section 439 of the CrPC), though wide, is to be exercised judiciously, and not as a matter of course. In Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar,5 the Supreme Court held that, while considering an application for bail, the Court is required to examine whether there exists a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed the alleged offence, and, while balancing the relevant considerations, including the nature and gravity of the offence and the likelihood of the accused obstructing the trial or evading the course of justice, to determine whether continued custody is warranted; and that, at this stage, it is impermissible to undertake a detailed analysis of the evidence, or to record findings on the merits, such issues being matters for trial. 10. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, the material on record, and in particular the statement of Mohd. Khalid and the use of the Scorpio by the applicant, prima facie discloses the complicity of 1 (2018) 3 SCC 22. 2 (2010) 14 SCC 496. 3 (2012) 1 SCC 40. 4 (2022) 10 SCC 51. 5 (2020) 2 SCC 118. 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 17/09/2026 at 11:16:40 the applicant in a grave offence, in which two persons have lost their lives and a third has been injured. 11. The charges are yet to be framed. The inconsistencies and the different versions of the prosecution case sought to be highlighted on behalf of the applicant are matters which will fall for consideration at the stage of trial, and cannot, at this stage, constitute a ground for the grant of regular bail. 12. The applicant, further, does not have clean antecedents, being involved in five other criminal cases, and the mere fact of his incarceration does not, by itself, entitle him to the grant of regular bail. 13. Bearing in mind the overall facts and circumstances, this Court is, at this stage, not inclined to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 14. Accordingly, the application fails and is hereby dismissed. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J SEPTEMBER 15, 2026 P/Adi 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 17/09/2026 at 11:16:40