The Delhi High Court granted regular bail in an attempted murder case, holding that mere presence near the crime scene does not prove criminal involvement. Justice Girish Kathpalia also reprimanded police after the IO and SHO failed to assist the prosecution in court.
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has granted regular bail to an accused in an attempted murder case, concluding that simply being seen in the vicinity of the crime scene does not establish involvement in the offense.
Justice Girish Kathpalia issued the order while expressing strong disapproval of the local police for the failure of both the Investigating Officer (IO) and the Station House Officer (SHO) to appear in court to assist the prosecution.
ALSO READ: Arvind Kejriwal Bail Case: Delhi High Court Gives ED Last Chance to Challenge Bail
Factual 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 involves charges under Section 109(1)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) (attempted murder with joint liability) and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.
According to the prosecution, the incident occurred at approximately 2:00 AM on July 1, 2025. The complainant reported hearing a disturbance outside his residence, and upon checking from his balcony, he allegedly saw co-accused Shibu with a pistol. Shibu reportedly fired twice at the complainant intending to kill him, but the complainant escaped unharmed by running inside. The police, on arrival found two empty shells and bullet dents from the spot of crime.
The police’s status report indicated that during the investigation, the complainant and his daughter had implicated Shibu and another individual, identified as Sandeep, based on CCTV footage analysis.
The Status Report shows:
“During the course of the investigation the complainant and his daughter told that the alleged Shibu came at the complainant’s house with another boy namely accused/applicant Sandeep. The CCTV cameras were analysed nearby the complainant’s house, wherein two boys were roaming nearby by the complainant’s house, who were identified by the complainant as Shibu @ Anurag and his friend applicant Sandeep.”
The prosecution claimed that
“two boys were roaming nearby the complainant’s house, who were identified by the complainant as Shibu @ Anurag and his friend, applicant Sandeep.”
Arguments of Parties
Mr. Pramod Kumar, representing the petitioner, argued that Sandeep had been falsely implicated. He noted that a co-accused, Ishant, who had a similar role, was granted bail by the High Court on January 8, 2026.
Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) for the State, opposed the bail request, citing the CCTV evidence and the complainant’s identification.
Also Read: BREAKING| Sharjeel Imam Withdraws Interim Bail Plea to Contest Bihar Elections
Analysis of the Court
- Strong Disapproval of IO and SHO’s Absence
The Court noted the absence of both IO, SI Heera Lal, and SHO, Inspector Amit Kumar. The Court criticized the situation, stating that despite repeated judicial instructions for the SHO to appear if the IO was unavailable, only an SI had been 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 ordered that a copy of the order be sent to the Commissioner of Police for necessary action.
- Scrutiny of CCTV Evidence
During the hearing, the Court requested the CCTV footage cited by the prosecution. Initially, a police officer claimed it was with the FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory). However, while the order was being dictated, the footage was produced from a mobile device.
Upon reviewing the footage, the Court remarked:
“No clear face is visible in the said CCTV footage.”
- Merely Roaming Near Spot is Not Complicity
Addressing the primary allegation against Sandeep, the Court held that mere presence in the area was insufficient to justify denying him 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 observed that the complainant’s initial complaint “does not even whisper about presence of anyone else with the co-accused Shibu.”
Final Order
Given the circumstances and the prior bail granted to co-accused Ishant, the High Court approved Sandeep’s bail application.
The Court remarked:
“There is no reason to deprive the accused/applicant liberty any further.”
The Bail was allowed subject to his 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 Title: Sandeep @ Chaman vs. State of NCT Delhi & Anr.
Read Attachment: