Dismissed

Vikas Das @Virat @Nakli v. the State (Nct of Delhi)

Delhi HC1 Jul 2025BAIL APPLN./2270/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Crl.M.A. 18135/2025, the Delhi HC rejected a regular bail application under Section 439 CrPC in a murder case registered under IPC 302/201. The Court held it inapposite to entertain the plea as the trial was nearing conclusion, while granting an exemption in a separate application and directing the trial court to expedite proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; trial court directed to complete trial within 6-8 months. Separate exemption application allowed.

Vikas Das @Virat @Nakli Vs the State (Nct of Delhi) — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~3

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- BAIL APPLN. 2270/2025

¶4

VIKAS DAS @VIRAT @NAKLI .....Applicant

¶5

Through: Mr. Satyabhan Singh Baghel, Adv. through V.C.

¶6

versus

¶7

THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Ms. Richa Dhawan, APP for the State. Insp. Ramesh Chand, PS Dwarka South.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN O R D E R % 01.07.2025

¶9

CRL.M.A. 18135/2025 ( exemption )

¶10

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶11

The application stands disposed of.

¶12

BAIL APPLN. 2270/2025

¶13

The present application is filed seeking regular bail in FIR No. 37/2018 dated 13.02.2018 registered at Police Station Dwarka South for offences under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘ IPC ’). Chargesheet was filed under Sections 302/201/34 of the IPC.

¶14

The FIR was registered pursuant to a complaint given by one Manish Parikh thereby informing the police that on account of a fire, one person got burnt in the Jungle. On receipt of the information, the police reached the spot and found that the victim (later identified as Sandeep Singh) was lying in a badly burnt condition (hereafter ‘ deceased ’). The fire was thereafter extinguished with the help of staff. It is alleged that the applicant

¶15

BAIL APPLN. 2270/2025 Page 1 of 3

¶16

This is a digitally signed order.

¶17

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/07/2025 at 09:29:29

¶18

came to the spot and misguided the police that he had seen two persons going away from the spot.

¶19

During the course of the investigation, the statement of the deceased’s father was recorded, who stated that the applicant along with two more persons had come to his house on 13.02.2018 and had taken the deceased along with them. Thereafter, the deceased did not return. He stated that on 15.02.2018, the staff of the Salon where the deceased used to work, informed him that the deceased had not come for work. He further stated that thereafter he asked the whereabouts of the deceased from the applicant, who did not disclose anything. On 17.02.2018, a missing person report was also given by the father of the deceased.

¶20

On 19.02.2018, the applicant was arrested, who allegedly admitted to his involvement. It is alleged that the applicant admitted that he hatched a conspiracy with one JCL for committing the murder of the deceased. It is alleged that the applicant along with one JCL had planned the murder of the deceased owing to his alleged close proximity with the applicant’s girlfriend. The manner in which the deceased was killed was also disclosed.

¶21

The Police further claimed to have recovered other incriminating evidence which points towards the involvement of the applicant in the crime.

¶22

Multiple bail applications had been filed by the applicant which were dismissed by the learned Trial Court. The last bail application was dismissed by the learned Trial Court on 08.11.2024 thereby observing that the allegations against the applicant are heinous. It was noted that the clothes of the applicant were recovered pursuant to his disclosure statement. Further, as BAIL APPLN. 2270/2025 Page 2 of 3

¶23

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/07/2025 at 09:29:29

¶24

per the FSL result, the genetic material of the deceased was found on the clothes of the applicant. Consequently, considering the gravity of the offence and the probability of the applicant fleeing from justice in order to avoid harsh punishment in case the applicant was found guilty, the learned Trial Court dismissed the bail application preferred by the applicant.

¶25

On being pointedly asked, it is informed that out of 24 witnesses, 17 witnesses have already been examined. The trial is at its fag end and is likely to conclude in the near future.

¶26

In view of the above, considering the gravity of the offence and that the trial is likely to conclude in near future, this Court does not consider it apposite to entertain the present application at this stage.

¶27

The application is, therefore, dismissed. The learned Trial Court is requested to expedite the recording of evidence and make an endeavour to complete the trial within 6 – 8 months.

¶28

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

¶29

JULY 1, 2025 “SK”

¶30

Page 3 of 3

¶31

BAIL APPLN. 2270/2025

¶32

Vikas Das @Virat @Nakli v. the State (Nct of Delhi)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas Das @Virat @Nakli v. the State (Nct of Delhi)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sh. Dhani Ram Mehto Vs Sh. Harnam Singh & Ors.

Arun Narula - Proprietor of Parul Agencies Vs Electromech Industrial Corporation & Anr.

Arun Narula - Proprietor of Parul Agencies Vs Electromech Industrial Corporation & Anr.

Pankaj Kumar and Ors. Vs the State (Nct of Delhi and Anr.

Jagbir Ahlawat Vs State(Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Sanjay Choudhary Vs Sana Choudhary