The Delhi High Court has granted regular bail to an accused in an attempted murder case, observing that merely being seen roaming around the area near the crime spot does not establish complicity in the offence.
Justice Girish Kathpalia passed the order while strongly deprecating the conduct of the local police for the failure of the Investigating Officer (IO) and the Station House Officer (SHO) to appear before the Court to assist the prosecutor.
Background of the Case
The applicant, Sandeep @ Chaman, sought regular bail in connection with FIR No. 490/2025 registered at Police Station Wazirabad, Delhi. The FIR was registered for offences under Section 109(1)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) (attempt to murder read with joint liability) and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.
According to the prosecution, the incident occurred on July 1, 2025, at about 02:00 AM. The complainant alleged that upon hearing a commotion outside his home, he went to the balcony and saw the co-accused, Shibu, standing with a pistol. Shibu allegedly fired twice at the complainant with the intention to kill, but the complainant escaped unhurt.
The police status report stated that during the investigation, the complainant and his daughter alleged that Shibu had come to the house with another boy, identified as the applicant, Sandeep. The prosecution relied on CCTV analysis, claiming that “two boys were roaming nearby by the complainant’s house, who were identified by the complainant as Shibu @ Anurag and his friend applicant Sandeep.”
Arguments
Mr. Pramod Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that the applicant had been falsely implicated in the case. He submitted that a co-accused, Ishant, who had been ascribed a similar role, had already been granted bail by the High Court on January 8, 2026.
Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) for the State, assisted by SI Renu, opposed the bail plea based on the CCTV footage and the identification by the complainant.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
1. Strong Disapproval of IO and SHO’s Absence
At the outset, the Court took serious note of the absence of the IO, SI Heera Lal, and the SHO, Inspector Amit Kumar. The Court observed that despite repeated judicial directions that the SHO must appear if the IO is on leave, only an SI was sent to assist the prosecutor.
Justice Kathpalia remarked:
“This has to be now deprecated strongly. In the absence of the Investigating Officer or the SHO, adjourning the bail matters would certainly be wrong by adding to the incarceration period of the accused… The issue of liberty of an individual cannot be handled insensitively.”
The Court directed a copy of the order to be sent to the Commissioner of Police for information and necessary action.
2. Scrutiny of CCTV Evidence
During the hearing, the Court asked for the CCTV footage relied upon by the prosecution. Initially, the police officer stated that the footage was with the FSL. However, during the dictation of the order, the footage was produced on a mobile phone.
After examining the footage, the Court observed:
“No clear face is visible in the said CCTV footage.”
3. Merely Roaming Near Spot is Not Complicity
Addressing the core allegation against the applicant, the Court held that presence in the vicinity alone is insufficient to deny liberty.
The Court stated:
“Be that as it may, merely because the accused/applicant was seen roaming around in the area near the spot, does not attract his complicity in the offence to the extent of curtailing his liberty.”
The Court further noted that the complainant’s initial complaint “does not even whisper about presence of anyone else with the co-accused Shibu.”
Decision
In view of the circumstances and the fact that the co-accused Ishant had already been granted bail, the High Court allowed the bail application.
The Court directed that Sandeep @ Chaman be released on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
Case Details:
Case Title: Sandeep @ Chaman vs. State of NCT Delhi & Anr.
Case No.: Bail Appln. 176/2026 & Crl.M.A. 1497/2026
Coram: Justice Girish Kathpalia
