Amit Gulia v. Central Bureau of Investigation

IN Amit Guli Central B Date of d Date of U

CORAM Present:

SUMEET

¶1Bharatiya in case be the offenc Sections 2 of Origin Bahadurg

¶25:15 PM Railway Sanjay so Haryana, Singh Ra intercepte alleged th THE HIGH COURT OF PUN CHANDIGA

ia

V/s ureau of Investigation decision: 16.04.2026 Uploading: 16.04.2026 M: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Mr. Jitender Sethi, Senior Ad Mr. Keshav Sethi, Advocate Mr. Akashdeep Singh, Specia ***** T GOEL, J. (Oral) Present petition has been a Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita for gr earing FIR No.RC0502024S000 ces punishable under Sections 25, 27 of Arms Act at Police St nal FIR No.37/2024 dated 26.02 garh, Jhajjar, Haryana). The prosecution case, in bri , an incident of indiscriminat Crossing, Bahadurgarh. The on of Shri Diwan Singh, res who was travelling in a Toyota athee and Jai Kishan Dalal a ed by assailants travelling in a hat 4-5 armed assailants came o

NJAB AND HARYANA AT ARH CRM-M-62452-2025

....Petitioner

....Respondent SUMEET GOEL dvocate with for the petitioner. al Public Prosecutor, CBI.

filed under Section 483 of rant of regular bail to the petition 05 dated 01.05.2024, registered 302, 307, 120-B, 34 of IPC a tation CBI/SC-II/Delhi (arising o

2.2024 at Police Station Line P ief, is that on 25.02.2024 at abo te firing took place near Bar complainant namely Rakesh sident of Sector-6, Bahadurga Fortuner alongwith deceased N and another injured person, w a Hyundai i-20 car. It has be out of the vehicle and opened fir

ner for and out Par out ahi @ arh, afe was een

resulting i while two threats to

Subseque the instan against th murder, a

¶3petitioner substantia offence. petitioner disclosure the absen continued eyewitnes the comm recovery effected f instance. against th factually categorica arguendo, to the peti in the death of Nafe Singh Rathe o others sustained serious inju the family members of the decea Initially, FIR No.37 dat ntly, the investigation was trans nt FIR on 01.05.2024. After inve he petitioner alongwith co-accus ttempt to murder and criminal co Learned senior counsel for t r has been falsely implicated into al evidence against him which Learned senior counsel has fur r surfaced only during the cours e statement(s) of co-accused wh ce of independent corroboration d incarceration. It has been fu ss account or documentary mat mission of the offence. Accord of weapon, mobile phone or an from the petitioner nor any re Learned senior counsel has he petitioner is that he has facil incorrect and is itself contrad ally deny any recovery of , even if the prosecution case is itioner is limited to alleged facil

ee and Jai Kishan Dalal on the sp uries. The assailants also issu ased. ted 26.02.2024 was register ferred to the CBI, which register estigation, a charge-sheet was fi sed persons for offences includi onspiracy. the petitioner has iterated that o the FIR in question as there is h connect him with the alleg rther iterated that the name of se of investigation on the basis hich have no evidentiary value n & cannot form the sole basis further submitted that there is terial which links the petitioner ding to learned senior counsel, ny incriminating material has be ecovery has been effected at emphasized that the allegatio litated communication from jail dicted by official records wh mobile phone/device. Assumi taken to be true, the role ascrib litation or introduction between c

pot ued red. red led ing ged of in for r to een his ons l is ich ing bed co-

accused p constitute has been considerab still goin incarcerat purpose. abide by granted th prayer has

¶4vehement against th iterated th out in a p their lives in a publi participate sufficient constant facilitatin the petitio logistics i been cont from the during the persons which does not establish e criminal conspiracy. It has bee in custody for a substantial pe ble time as several accused ar g on. Learned senior counse tion of the petitioner in such cir Moreover, the petitioner is no any condition(s) that may be im he concession of regular bail. On s been made for grant of regular Learned counsel appearin tly opposed the petition in han he petitioner are grave and serio hat the present case pertains to a premeditated and organized man s and others sustained grievous i ic place. According to learned c ed in the criminal conspiracy as material has surfaced which touch with co-accused person g the execution of the crime. Le oner has not only arranged the including coordination for the v tended that the role ascribed to statement(s) of co-accused as e course of investigation. It has

any meeting of minds necessary en further contended that petition eriod and the trial is likely to ta re absconding and investigation el has emphasized that continu rcumstances would serve no use t at flight risk and undertakes mposed by this Court in case he n the strength of these submissio bail to the petitioner. g for the respondent-CBI h nd by arguing that the allegatio us in nature. Learned counsel h brutal double murder being carr nner wherein two persons have l injuries due to indiscriminate firi counsel, the petitioner has activ s during the course of investigati reflect that the petitioner was ns and played a crucial role earned counsel has emphasized t e shooters but also facilitated vehicle used in the offence. It h the petitioner has been establish well as other witnesses record been asserted that charge-sheet h

y to ner ake n is ued eful to e is ons, has ons has ied lost ing ely ion in in hat has hed ded

already b have alrea and prose strong pri going on grant of investigat involved i nature. It gang and witnesses a prayer h

¶5perused th

¶6Court; ho principled the interes evaluate f the accuse of the lik likelihood probabilit of the a Additiona and overa een filed against the petitioner ady been framed by the Court ecution witnesses are being ex ima facie case against the petitio qua other absconding accused p bail to the petitioner may tion. Furthermore, the petitione in several other serious criminal t has been contended that petiti there is strong likelihood that if , tamper with evidence or evade has been made for the dismissal o I have heard learned couns he available record. The grant of bail falls withi owever, such discretion must d manner, ensuring it aligns wit sts of justice. While considering factors such as the existence of ed, the nature and gravity of the kely sentence upon conviction. d of the accused absconding or e ty of the offence being repeated accused tampering with evid ally, the character, antecedents, all conduct of the accused play

and other co-accused and charg below. The trial has commenc xamined and, thus, there exists oner. However, investigation is s persons and in such a situation seriously prejudice the ongoi er has criminal antecedents as he l case including offences of simi ioner is associated with a crimin f released on bail, he may influen e the process of law. According of the petition in hand. sel for the rival parties and ha in the discretionary domain of be exercised in a judicious a th established legal precedents a g a bail application, the Court m f prima facie evidence implicati e alleged offence, and the sever The Court must also assess evading the due process of law, d, and any reasonable apprehensi dence or influencing witness financial means, societal standin y a crucial role. Furthermore, t

ges ced s a still ing e is ilar nal nce gly, ave and and must ing rity ion ses. ng,

Court m administra in this reg titled as S Court 349 must weigh the potential da ation of justice or thwarting its gard is made to the judgment pas State through C.B.I. vs. Amaram 90, relevant whereof reads as und

¶14It is well settled that the m for bail are (i)whether there is any believe that the accused hadcommitt the charge; (iii) severity of thepuni danger of accused absconding or fl behaviour, means, position and stand offence being repeated; (vii) reasona tampered with; and (viii) danger, of c of bail (see Prahlad Singh Bhati v. 377 (SC) :2001(4) SCC 280 an Administration), AIR 1978 Suprem that accused may tamper with the ev to refuse bail, if the accused is of s large would intimidate the witnesse will use his liberty to subvert justice will berefused. We may also refer to or refusal of bail stated in Kalyan 2004(2) RCR (Criminal) 254 (SC) :2 grant or refusal of bail is very well exercise its discretion in a judicious Though at the stage of granting bail elaborate documentation of the mer there is a need to indicate in such or why bail was being granted particu having committed a serious offence. suffer from non-application of mind. granting bail to consider among oth also before granting bail; they are: a. The nature of accusation and conviction and the nature of supporti b. Reasonable apprehension of tamp ofthreat to the complainant.

anger of bail undermining due course. A profitable referen ssed by the Hon'ble Supreme Co mani Tripathi, 2005 AIR Suprem der: matters to be considered in an applicat y prima facie or reasonable ground ted the offence; (ii) nature and gravity ishment in the event of conviction; fleeing ifreleased on bail; (v) charac ding of the accused;(vi) likelihood of able apprehension of thewitnesses be course, of justice being thwarted bygr . NCT, Delhi, 2001(2) RCR (Crimin d Gurcharan Singh v. State (De me Court 179). While a vague allegat vidence orwitnesses may not be a grou such character that hismere presence es or if there is material to show tha e or tamper with the evidence, then b the following principles relating to gr n Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranj 2004(7) SCC 528 :"The law in regard l settled. The court granting bail sho s manner and not as a matter of cour l a detailed examination of evidence a rit of the case need not be undertak rders reasons for prima facie conclud ularly where the accused is charged Any order devoid of such reasons wo It is also necessary for the cou her circumstances, the following fact the severity of punishment in case ing evidence. pering with the witness or apprehens

nce ourt me tion d to y of

(iv) cter, f the eing rant nal) elhi tion und e at athe bail rant jan, d to ould rse. and ken, ding d of ould urt tors e of

: 20

¶7facing tria double mu not only i the prose involved c. Prima facie satisfaction of the co GovindUpadhyay v. Sudarshan Sing 2002(3) SCC 598 andPuran v. Ra

(SC) : 2001(6) SCC 338." This Court also in specific terms h "the condition laid down under secti bail even under section 439 of the C that the High Court has given the pe by the accused and the unlikelihood grounds sufficient to enlarge the acc accused stands charged of offences even death penalty. In such cases, accused has undergone certain peri case) by itself would not entitle the the fact that the trial is not likely to b itself or coupled with the period of enlarging the appellant on bail wh severe and there are allegations of accused during the period he was on In Panchanan Mishra v. Digamb 005(1) RCR(Criminal) 712 (SC) : 200 "The object underlying the cance and secure justice being done to who is set at liberty by the bail or the heinous crime..... It hardly re released on bail in serious crimin stringent and deterrent, the acc clutches of the same indulge in v prosecution witnesses, threatenin victim and also create problems of The petitioner is accused of c al therein. Indubitably, the prese urder executed in a public place in loss of two lives but also crea ecution case, the role attributed in the criminal conspiracy le

ourt in support of the charge. (see R gh, 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) 250 (SC am Bilas, 2001(2) RCR (Criminal) 8 held that : ion 437(1)(i) is sine qua non for grant Code. In the impugned order it is noti eriod of incarceration already undergo of trial concluding in the near future cused on bail, in spite of the fact that s punishable with life imprisonment in our opinion, the mere fact that iod of incarceration (three years in accused to being enlarged on bail, be concluded in the near future either of incarceration would be sufficient en the gravity of the offence alleged of tampering with the witnesses by bail." bar Mishra, 2005(1) Apex Criminal 3 05(3) SCC 143, this Court observed : ellation of bail is to protect the fair t o the society by preventing the accu rder from tampering with the evidence quires to be stated that once a person nal cases where the punishment is qu cused in order to get away from various activities like tampering with ng the family members of the decea of law and order situation." committing a capital offence and ent case pertains to a cold-blood e by use of firearms which resul ated an atmosphere of fear. As p d to the petitioner is that he w eading to the commission of

Ram C) : ting iced one e as t or this nor r by for d is rial used e in n is uite ased d is ded ted per

offence. I main cons in arrangi assailant considere person wh important crime but Merely be to the co involveme fact that t double m factors wh advanced does not p already be accused a them can petitioner

¶8period bu concessio that there delayed. constitute It is alleged that the petitioner, spirator, facilitated contact betw ing the shooters. Even if the role but his involvement cannot be d opinion of this Court, in ca ho contributes to the planning o t role. The offence is not limit t also includes those who supp ecause the petitioner is not prese oncession of bail particularly ent in the larger conspiracy. T the allegations pertain to an orga murder. The gravity and seriou hile considering the plea for gra on behalf of the petitioner rega persuade this Court. It is apt to een framed and trial has comme are absconding or further inves nnot be a ground to grant bail r stands prima facie supported by Indeed, the petitioner has su ut the same factum by itself on of regular bail to the petition e is nothing to arrive at the con The mere duration of incarce e a compelling ground for the g

, acting on the instructions of een co-accused persons and help e of the petitioner is not of a dir e said to be insignificant. In ses of criminal conspiracy, eve or execution of the crime plays ted only to those who commit t port the commission of the crim ent on the spot does not entitle h when the allegations show This Court cannot lose sight of anized conspiracy culminating in usness of the offence are relev ant of regular bail. The argum arding the prolonged incarcerati o mention herein that charges ha nced. The mere fact that some c stigation is ongoing in respect l when the role attributed to y material collected. uffered incarceration for substant f is not sufficient to extend er, particularly, in light of the f clusion that trial is getting undu eration, standing alone, does n grant of regular bail, especially

ped rect ery an me. him his n a ant ent ion ave co-of tial fact uly not

light of Furthermo petitioner said to be criminal a with the n of the pet not entitle devoid of

¶9shall not h as also the being infl

10.

April 16, , Ajay

the gravity of the allegation ore, the apprehension express r may influence witnesses or ha e baseless particularly in view o antecedents. Considering the ser nature of offence involving doub itioner, this Court is of the consi ed to the concession of regular f merits and is hereby dismissed. Any observations made and/ have any effect on merits of the e trial Court shall proceed furthe uenced with this order. Pending application(s), if any

2026

ns and the evidence on reco sed by the prosecution that amper the investigation cannot of the nature of allegations and iousness of the allegations coup ble murder as also the antecede idered opinion that the petitioner bail. Accordingly, the petition

/or submissions noted hereinabo e case and the investigating agen er, in accordance with law, witho y, shall also stand disposed of. (SUMEET GOEL)

JUDGE

ord. be led ents r is n is ove ncy