Ravi @ Ravinath Vs the State NCT of Delhi

¶1

$~13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- BAIL APPLN. 2337/2025

¶4

RAVI @ RAVINATH .....Applicant Through: Mr. Gagan Bhatnagar & Mr. Deepak Chillar, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

THE STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for the State with SI Ramvatar, PS Vasant Vihar. Mr.Tushar Rohmetra, Advocate along with complainant in person.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

21.07.2025

¶10

Being in custody as an under trial, applicant herein seeks bail in FIR No.91/2024 dated 12.05.2024, registered under Section 307 IPC at Police Station Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.

¶11

Per FIR, it is alleged that the applicant/ Ravi is an alcoholic and often creates nuisance in the neighborhood where he resides. Likewise, on 11.05.2024, when complainant was sitting outside his house, the applicant picked up an altercation with complainant and used abusive language. When complainant tried to counsel him, in return applicant started threatening that the complainant should mind his own business and not try to act as a public leader or else he would face dire consequences. Then, suddenly, he pulled out a knife from his pocket and stabbed the complainant despite the complainant trying his level best to save himself 4-5 times prior thereto by

¶12

This is a digitally signed order.

¶13

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 24/07/2025 at 11:52:22

¶14

running away from the reach of applicant. Subsequently, family members of the complainant took him to the hospital where his statement was recorded.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant argues that the charge-sheet has already been filed and yet trial has not commenced, while applicant continues to languish in jail. Even otherwise, alleged injury was not so serious so as to invoke Section 307 IPC. It was a mere simple injury, he contends. Parties are friends and live in the same neighbourhood and have also compromised the matter.

¶16

He would also point out that the applicant is not involved in any other case. According to him, the applicant is in custody since 12.05.2024.

¶17

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail plea. However, on a court query, it transpires that that alleged injury was not as serious so as to attract the rigours of Section 307 IPC. He does not dispute that applicant is not involved in any other case.

¶18

Furthermore, complainant/informant of the FIR is present in person Court. He states that, both, he and the petitioner are friends from past. The allegations qua the petitioner were levelled due to a heated altercation which took place between two of them. Subsequently, he has resolved his differences and does not wish to press charges against the petitioner. He states that after settling the differences with each other, even a quashing petition bearing CRL.M.C. 4175/2025 has also been filed in this court, which is slated for hearing on 18.08.2025.

¶19

Having heard and on perusal of the case file and especially in light of the aforesaid statement of the complainant noted in the preceding paragraph, it is a fit case for grant of bail. Moreover, the petitioner is in custody since 12.05.2024. That apart, investigation is already over since charge-sheet has

¶20

This is a digitally signed order.

¶21

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 24/07/2025 at 11:52:22

¶22

already been filed. Trial is not likely to conclude anytime soon. No useful purpose would be served to keep the applicant in preventive custody. In view of the compromise, there is no likehood of the applicant influencing any of the material witnesses and the rest are merely official witnesses.

¶23

Taking wholesome view of the matter, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, and in view of the compromise, the applicant is admitted to bail on his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial court /Duty Magistrate, as the case may be, subject to the following conditions:-

¶24

(a) He shall not leave the NCT of Delhi without prior permission of the Court concerned;

¶25

(b) He shall appear before the Court concerned as and when required;

¶26

(c) In case of change of residential address and/or mobile number, the same shall be intimated to the Court concerned by way of an affidavit; and

¶27

Bail Application is disposed of accordingly.

¶28

ARUN MONGA, J

¶29

JULY 21, 2025 kd

¶30

This is a digitally signed order.

¶31

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 24/07/2025 at 11:52:22

Ravi @ Ravinath v. the State NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi @ Ravinath v. the State NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pappu Singh @Raju Singh Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Renu Bibi Vs State NCT of Delhi

Karan Nakwal@ Karan and Ors. Vs State of Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.