[1] Anis @ Dupettewala vs The State ( Govt.

Of Nct, Delhi) on 10 May,

2022
The court has granted regular bail to the petitioner/applicant in the case registered under FIR
No. 20/2015, which includes charges under Section 302/396/412/34 IPC and 25/27 Arms
Act. Here's a summary of the key points leading to the bail decision:
1. Background: The petitioner's earlier bail application was rejected by the Trial Court
primarily due to his involvement in multiple criminal cases, although he had already
completed the sentence in one case and was acquitted in another.
2. Grounds for Bail Application: The petitioner sought bail arguing that all material
witnesses had been examined, reducing the risk of tampering with evidence. He also
pointed out that co-accused with similar or more serious roles had already been
granted bail.
3. Opposition to Bail: The State opposed bail, citing substantial incriminating evidence,
including eyewitness testimonies and recovery of the deceased's ATM card from the
petitioner. They also highlighted the petitioner's previous criminal history involving
convictions under the NDPS Act.
4. Court's Considerations:
o The Court noted that the main witness against the petitioner had already been
examined and discharged.
o Emphasized the principle of parity, where other co-accused had been granted
bail despite serious charges.
o Rejected the Trial Court's reasoning that past convictions or acquittals should
indefinitely prevent bail during trial.
5. Bail Conditions: The petitioner was granted bail on the conditions that he:
o Executes a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of the same amount.
o Does not attempt to influence witnesses.
o Does not commit any offenses during the bail period.
o Provides his mobile number to the Investigating Officer and keeps location
services on.
o Seeks permission from the Trial Court before leaving the country.
o Appears before the Court on all scheduled dates.
6. Outcome: The court directed copies of the bail order to be sent to the Trial Court and
the Jail Superintendent for compliance.
In essence, the bail was granted based on the completion of witness examination, the
principle of parity with co-accused, and the belief that the petitioner's past criminal record
should not indefinitely bar him from bail during trial proceedings.

[2] Sanjay Kumar Pundeer vs State of NCT of Delhi

Facts of the Case: The incident occurred on 07.09.2021, where an FIR was registered based
on a complaint by Manoj Gupta. It was alleged that Sanjay Singh Pundeer, along with co-
accused Rajeev Gupta @ Ramu, was involved in the murder of Chaman (the deceased).
Rajeev Gupta allegedly shot the deceased with a katta (country-made firearm), and Sanjay
Singh Pundeer stabbed him multiple times with a knife.
1. Legal Charges: The FIR was filed under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code
(IPC) (murder with common intention) and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959
(unlawful possession of firearms).
2. Progress of Investigation:
 o The accused, including Sanjay Kumar Pundeer, were arrested shortly after the
incident.
o Various forensic evidence, including the knife allegedly used in the crime, was
sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for examination.
o Supplementary charge sheets were filed during the course of investigation,
incorporating reports from FSL and other agencies.
3. Legal Proceedings:
o The case was committed to the Court of Sessions by the Metropolitan
Magistrate, considering the serious nature of the charges.
o Sanjay Kumar Pundeer filed an application for default bail under Section 167
of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) on 17.05.2023, which was dismissed
by the Additional Sessions Judge on 07.06.2023.
o The dismissal was based on the prosecution's argument that the investigation
was complete, with only supplementary reports pending, and thus, statutory
bail did not apply.
This summary provides an overview of the factual background, charges, investigation, and
initial legal proceedings in the case of Sanjay Kumar Pundeer vs State of NCT of Delhi as of
September 2023.
1. Prayers Sought:
o The application requests the court to grant default or statutory bail to the
petitioner (Amit Sharma) in connection with FIR No. 747/2021 dated
07.09.2021.
o It seeks to set aside the order dated 07.06.2023 passed by Sh. Vipin Kharb, Ld.
Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), South-West, Dwarka District Courts, New
Delhi.
o The applicant also asks for any other appropriate orders deemed fit by the
Hon'ble Court.
2. Background:
o The chargesheet in the case was filed on 02.12.2021 against the accused
persons, including Amit Sharma and co-accused Rajeev Gupta @ Ramu.
o The charges included Sections 302/34/120B of the IPC (murder with common
intention and criminal conspiracy) and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act
(unlawful possession of firearms).
o Another co-accused, Kumar Pal Singh, was charge sheeted under Section
120B of the IPC (criminal conspiracy).
3. Cause of Death:
o The cause of death of the deceased was determined as "haemorrhagic shock
consequent upon firearm and stab injuries to multiple vital organs."
Legal Analysis:
Statutory Provisions:
 Section 167(2) of CrPC: Allows detention of the accused for a specified period
pending investigation and stipulates release on bail if chargesheet is not filed within
the prescribed period.
 Section 173(2) of CrPC: Requires the investigating officer to submit a police report
(chargesheet) to the magistrate after completing the investigation.
Judicial Precedents:
1. Dinesh Dalmia v. CBI (2007):
 o Chargesheet is a final report that must enable the court to decide on taking
cognizance.
o Further investigation under Section 173(8) is permissible after filing a
chargesheet.
o Right to default bail under Section 167(2) ceases once chargesheet is filed,
regardless of pending further investigation.
2. Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain v. State of Maharashtra (2012):
o Accused has an indefeasible right to bail if chargesheet is not filed within
specified time limits.
o Once chargesheet is filed, this right ceases, even if further investigation
continues.
3. Jugbir Singh v. NIA (2023):
o Chargesheet filing completes investigation as per Section 173(2).
o Further investigation under Section 173(8) supplements the chargesheet but
does not render it incomplete.
o Accused cannot claim bail if chargesheet is filed within the statutory period,
even if supplementary evidence or reports are pending.
Application to the Case:
 The chargesheet filed on 02.12.2021 was based on available evidence, including
eyewitness statements.
 Subsequent supplementary chargesheets (14.03.2023, 18.04.2023) indicate pending
reports such as FSL results and expert opinions.
 The prosecution argues these reports are supplementary and not essential for the
chargesheet’s completeness under Section 173(2).
 Judicial findings emphasize that filing a chargesheet with available evidence
constitutes completion under the law, allowing for further investigation under Section
173(8).
Conclusion:
Based on the legal principles and case facts presented:
 The chargesheet filed on 02.12.2021 is deemed complete under Section 173(2) of the
CrPC.
 The subsequent supplementary chargesheets do not render the initial chargesheet
incomplete but rather supplement it with additional evidence.
 The right to default bail under Section 167(2) of CrPC does not apply once a
chargesheet is filed, irrespective of pending supplementary reports.
Recommendation:
Given the above analysis, it is recommended to argue against the claim for default bail based
on incomplete chargesheets. Emphasize that the initial chargesheet was filed within the
statutory period and subsequent supplementary chargesheets are permissible under Section
173(8) for further investigation and evidence supplementation.
This approach aligns with the established legal interpretations and ensures clarity in handling
the accused's bail application under Section 167(2) of the CrPC.
[3] BALRAJ SINGH PETITONER(S) VS STATE OF PUNJAB(S)
In this case, the court has examined the complete petition along with attached documents and
has also sought the assistance of police investigating officer namely ASI MOHAN CHAND,
who was present along with the police file of the case.
The court perused the legal provision reproduce in the petition that Sec 23A of the Act of
1957, enables the concerned accused to compound the offence therefore, he was charged
under Sec 307, 452, 506, 148, 149 IPC and Sec 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act, Police Station-
Haryana, Hoshiyarpur.
On this issue, ASI MOHAN CHAND who is present in court with police file of the case is
also unable to cite any special evidence against the petitioner. However, he submits that after
completion of investigation, challan has already been submitted to concerned court.
It is also noticed that ASI MOHAN CHAND also confirmed that petitioner has been under
the judicial custody for more than three months.
Since, the investigation was complete and no relevant evidence was found.
Accordingly, prayer made in the present was allowed. Petitioner was ordered to be released
on bail.