logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 DHC 278 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court of Delhi
Case No : Bail Appln. No. 768 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
Parties : Nitesh @ Vinay Versus State (NCT Of Delhi)
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Kuldeep Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent: Amit Ahlawat, APP.
Date of Judgment : 29-04-2026
Head Note :-
Arms Act -

Comparative Citation:
2026 DHC 3619,
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Section 309(4)/317(2)/309(6)/311/3(5) BNS
- Section 308(4)/125/3(5) BNS
- Section 25/27 Arms Act

2. Catch Words:
- Bail
- Arms Act
- Toy gun
- Robbery
- TIP proceedings
- Live cartridges
- Motorcycle theft

3. Summary:
The accused applied for regular bail in FIR No. 610/2024 for offences under various sections of the BNS and the Arms Act. The prosecution alleged that the accused, along with a co‑accused, used a firearm to rob a complainant and later opened fire on an office, demanding ransom. The accused claimed the gun was a toy and that no weapon was recovered. The State countered that a real pistol, live cartridges, and the stolen motorcycle were seized from the accused and that the complainant positively identified him during TIP proceedings. The court noted defects in the TIP but observed that the magistrate had not yet testified. Considering the successful TIP, recovery of the weapon and stolen property, and the stage of trial, the court found no grounds to grant bail.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed
Judgment :-

Judgment (Oral)

1. The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 610/2024 of Police Station Mundka West for offence under Section 309(4)/317(2)/ 309(6)/311/3(5) BNS.

2. Despite last order, status report was not filed. However, today IO/SI Deepak has appeared to assist the learned prosecutor.

3. I have heard learned counsel for accused/applicant and learned APP for State.

4. Broadly speaking, allegation against the accused/applicant is that on 15.09.2024, a PCR call was received informing an armed robbery with the complainant de facto. The IO recorded statement of the complainant de facto, who alleged that two unknown persons robbed him of his motorcycle on gun point after hitting him with fist and fled the spot. On the basis of statement of the complainant de facto FIR was registered. In a separate incident in the area of Sector 23, Dwarka, the accused/applicant and his co- accused opened fire on an office, while riding the motorcycle of the complainant de facto and they demanded ransom. Thereafter, both accused persons were arrested in FIR No. 233/2024 of PS Sector-23, Dwarka. Subsequently, the accused persons were arrested in the present case on 19.09.2024.

5. On behalf of accused/applicant, it is contended that the gun allegedly used by the accused/applicant was a toy gun, as stated by the complainant de facto and in the present case no gun has been recovered from the accused/applicant. It is also submitted by learned counsel that the complainant de facto already stands examined in trial.

6. Learned APP for State strongly opposes the bail application, clarifying that the gun used in the present case was recovered in FIR No. 233/2024 of PS Dwarka for offence under Section 308(4)/125/3(5) BNS and Section 25/27 Arms Act. It is also submitted that the accused/applicant was duly identified by the complainant de facto in the course of TIP proceedings and the accused/applicant has been involved in total three cases, out of which two are under the Arms Act. It is also contended that the complainant de facto has supported prosecution case during his testimony. Learned APP also submits that the pistol allegedly used in the offence, three live cartridges as well as the robbed motorcycle were recovered from the accused/applicant.

7. In rebuttal, learned counsel for accused/applicant submits that TIP proceedings were defective. But admittedly the learned Magistrate who conducted the TIP proceedings is yet to step into the witness box. Learned counsel for accused/applicant also submits that in FIR No. 233/2024, the accused/applicant stands admitted on bail.

8. Considering the overall circumstances, especially successful TIP and testimony of the complainant de facto supporting the prosecution case coupled with the recovery of the gun and live cartridges as well as the robbed motorcycle from the accused/applicant and stage of trial, presently I do not find it a fit case to grant bail. Therefore, the bail application is dismissed.

9. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for being immediately conveyed to the accused/applicant.
 
  CDJLawJournal