Delhi High Court: In a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking regular bail in relation to FIR dated 04-12-2023 registered at Police Station Punjabi Bagh under Sections 336 and 34 of the IPC and Sections 25, 27, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959, a single judge bench of Sanjeev Narula, J., granted bail on furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000 with one surety of the like amount subject to certain conditions.
The prosecution case was that on 03-12-2023, at about 6:30 PM, a security guard at the residence of Ex-MLA, Faridkot, Punjab heard gunshots near the main gate of the premises. He witnessed two unidentified men, aged about 25 years, firing four to five rounds at the gate before fleeing towards Ganda Nala, Punjabi Bagh. The case was transferred to the Crime Branch, New Delhi. Acting on secret information, one was apprehended. He disclosed the involvement of himself, the applicant and another accused claiming that the crime had been executed at the direction of the “Gogi Gang” in contact with the “Lawrence Bishnoi Gang.” Pursuant to these directions, firearms and cartridges were obtained from Sonipat. According to him, on 3rd December, he reached the target premises on a motorcycle provided by co-accused while the applicant and one other arrived by auto-rickshaw, and both fired at the residence while he waited with the motorcycle.
On 13-12-2023, the applicant was arrested after a brief exchange of fire with the police, leading to registration of a separate FIR under Sections 186, 353, 307 IPC and 25, 27 of the Arms Act. After investigation, the chargesheet was filed against the applicant for offences under Sections 336, 307, 482 and 120B of the IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The complainant, while acknowledging the presence of the shooters, refused to identify them before the Magistrate, citing fear due to their gang affiliations. The ex-MLA, Faridkot, meanwhile, gave a statement that in October 2023, Goldy Brar, a fugitive, had made extortion calls to him, burnt his liquor shops, and threatened further action, with a separate FIR already registered in Punjab. IP detailed records revealed contact suggesting overseas involvement. The call detail records placed the accused near the scene on both 29 November and 03-12-2023.
Counsel for applicant argued that he had been falsely implicated and the investigation was complete, chargesheet filed, and no further custodial interrogation was required. The original FIR did not contain allegations sufficient to attract Section 307 IPC, which was added only later, thereby raising doubts as to its applicability. The applicant’s name surfaced solely through the disclosure statements of co-accused, which are inadmissible in evidence. The recovery of pistols and a motorcycle from near the scene was rendered unreliable since the FSL report showed the recovered pistols did not match the bullets from the incident. Further, CCTV footage only showed masked assailants, and the complainant had failed to identify the applicant in TIP proceedings. The separate FIR concerning firing at the police was an unconnected incident. The masterminds Goldy Brar and Lawrence Bishnoi were not arraigned as accused, undermining the prosecution’s narrative. On parity, it was contended that all co-accused had already been granted bail, and the applicant’s case stood on similar footing.
The prosecution, opposing bail, submitted that the applicant was part of two organised gangs, “Gogi Gang” and “Lawrence Bishnoi Gang” and disclosure statements of co-accused, corroborated by CDRs, placed him in proximity to the scene. The CCTV footage, though not clear, captured shooters with covered faces, and the complainant refrained from identification due to fear of gang reprisals, not for want of recognition. The State argued that releasing the applicant on bail would endanger witnesses and threaten the integrity of the case. It also stressed that the complainant’s subsequent statement revealed that shots were fired at him, thus justifying inclusion of Section 307 IPC. It was further contended that the applicant had criminal antecedents, being involved in four other cases.
The Court, after considering the record, noted that the investigation was complete, charge sheet filed, and the applicant had already been in custody for over one year and seven months. His conduct in jail was assessed as satisfactory. On evidence, the Court observed that the CCTV footage did not conclusively identify the shooters, and the prosecution case primarily relied on disclosure statements and CDRs. In the absence of recovery or conclusive identification and given the limited evidentiary value of disclosures under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, these factors weighed in favour of granting bail. The forensic analysis of the footage was still pending. The Court also noted that Section 307 IPC was introduced later and not in the initial FIR, casting doubt on its prima facie applicability. While acknowledging the applicant’s other criminal antecedents, the Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P., (2020) 11 SCC 648, that mere pendency of multiple cases cannot by itself justify denial of bail. The State’s apprehensions could, in the Court’s view, be addressed by imposing stringent conditions.
Accordingly, the Court granted bail to the applicant on furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety of like amount, subject to strict conditions: cooperation with investigation, non-tampering of evidence, restriction on leaving Delhi NCR without intimation, mandatory appearance before Trial Court, reporting of residence details, fortnightly reporting to the IO/SHO, and continuous availability on mobile. The Court also clarified that if the applicant committed any further offence or a complaint was lodged, the State could seek cancellation of bail.
[Sombir v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5575, decided on 11-08-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Lewish Edward, Mr. Vignesh P. and Mr. Gyandendra Singh, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP. SI Parmod Kumar, Crime Branch, NDR
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
