Satish Yadav Vs State NCT of Delhi — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Delhi HC (2025)

Satish Yadav Vs State NCT of Delhi — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Regular bail pending trial granted to Satish Yadav @ Kalu s/o Lt. Mange Ram Yadav, subject to conditions: (i) personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with 02 sureties in the like amount from family members to the satisfaction of the trial court; (ii) furnishing to the Investigating Officer a cellphone number kept active and switched on at all times; (iii) surrender of passport (if any) to the trial court and no travel out of the country without prior permission of the trial court; (iv) no contact with, visit to, or inducement/threat/promise to prosecution witnesses or others acquainted with the case, and no tampering with evidence or prejudicial acts; (v) prompt written intimation to the I.O. of any change of residential address/contact details. No periodic reporting requirement imposed; copy of the order to be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent forthwith; other pending applications, if any, disposed of likewise.

Issue for consideration

Whether petitioner Satish Yadav should be granted regular bail pending trial in FIR No. 191/2022 (murder of Moinuddin; section 302 IPC; section 27 Arms Act; P.S. Darya Ganj). +1 more

Court's answer

On an overall conspectus, considering the allegations against the petitioner, the court is persuaded to grant the petitioner regular bail pending trial, subject to specified conditions (personal bond and sureties; active cellphone number with the Investigating Officer; surrender of passport and no foreign travel without trial-court permission; no contact with or inducement of prosecution witnesses and no tampering with evidence; prompt written notice of any change of residential address/contact details to the I.O.), with no reporting requirement imposed since the petitioner is already appearing before the trial court from time to time.

Ratio / Principle

The principal allegation against the petitioner - that he provided the motorcycle used in the offence - is based only on a supplementary disclosure statement of co-accused Vinit Goswami; the motorcycle was admittedly not recovered pursuant to that statement nor pursuant to any disclosure statement made by the petitioner; and co-accused Shoaib has made a contradictory disclosure saying the motorcycle was provided by one Furkan.

Key takeaways

PW-1 Ruknuddin, the claimed eye-witness to the offence on whose complaint the FIR was registered, has not named the petitioner in his deposition.ratio¶16.2
It is not the prosecution case that the petitioner was present at the scene of the crime at the relevant time, nor that he wielded the weapon.ratio¶16.3
Though the prosecution alleges extensive phone connectivity between the petitioner and some co-accused, there is nothing on record by way of phone recordings, WhatsApp chats or other messages giving insight into the context or content of the alleged conversations.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI | BAIL APPLN. 4466/2024 | Order dated 13.02.2025 | ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J. — Regular bail pending trial granted to Satish Yadav @ Kalu s/o Lt. Mange Ram Yadav under section 483 BNSS 2023 in FIR No. 191/2022 dated 18.05.2022 (section 302 IPC; section 27 Arms Act; P.S. Darya Ganj) arising from the murder of Moinuddin committed on 17.05.2022; petitioner arrested 04.07.2022. Weighing with the court: (1) the principal allegation — that the petitioner provided the motorcycle used in the offence — rests solely on a supplementary disclosure statement of co-accused Vinit Goswami; the motorcycle had already been recovered on 18.05.2022, not pursuant to that statement nor to any disclosure by the petitioner, and co-accused Shoaib made a contradictory disclosure crediting one Furkan; (2) eye-witness/complainant PW-1 Ruknuddin, whose deposition concluded 12.09.2024, did not name the petitioner; (3) prosecution does not allege petitioner was present at the scene or wielded the country-made pistol (which, per the State, travelled from Amit Giri @ Badam through the petitioner to Vinit Goswami, the petitioner allegedly receiving Rs. 1 lac); (4) alleged contacts (>350 calls with Vinit Goswami, >700 with Amit Giri @ Badaam, ~38 with Afsar @ Happy, February–May 2022) are CDR-based only, with no messages or recordings recovered showing context or content; (5) Nominal Roll 30.12.2024 — about 02 years 07 months undertrial custody, jail conduct 'satisfactory', on bail in a separate case (IPC 420/467/468/471/323/504/506/120-B, P.S. Wave City, Ghaziabad, U.P.); (6) charge-sheet filed 23.08.2022 yet only 04 of 60 prosecution witnesses (04 of 09 public witnesses) have deposed, so the trial will take very long. Conditions: personal bond Rs. 25,000/- with 02 family-member sureties; active cellphone number with the I.O.; passport surrender and no foreign travel without trial-court permission; no contact/inducement of witnesses and no evidence-tampering; prompt written notice to I.O. of address/contact changes; no periodic reporting requirement imposed. The order expressly disclaims any expression of opinion on the merits; a copy was ordered sent to the Jail Superintendent forthwith.

$~32

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

BAIL APPLN. 4466/2024 SATISH YADAV .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Hirein Sharma, Mr. Balaji Pathak and Mr. Anil Dalal, Advocates.

versus

STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for the State with Insp. Ichha Ram, P.S.:Dariyaganj. Mr. Nasir Kamal, Advocate for the complainant.

%

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI O R D E R 13.02.2025

By way of the present petition filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, the petitioner seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 191/2022 dated 18.05.2022 registered under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 at P.S.: Darya Ganj, Delhi.

Notice on this petition was issued on 05.12.2024. Status Reports dated 23.12.2024, 20.01.2025 and 28.01.2025 have been filed. Nominal Roll dated 30.12.2024 has been received from the concerned Jail Superintendent.

Mr. Hirein Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits, that petitioner is being falsely implicated in the murder of one Moinuddin which took place on 17.05.2022. It is submitted that the petitioner was arrested about 02 months later, on 04.07.2022, on

BAIL APPLN. 4466/2024 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 01/07/2025 at 00:35:22

Page 1 of 7

the disclosure statement of co-accused/Vinit Goswami, in which the said co-accused is supposed to have disclosed that the motorcycle, which was allegedly used in the commission of the offence, was provided by the petitioner. It is pointed-out that apart from the fact that this disclosure statement was a supplementary disclosure statement of the said Vinit Goswami, another co-accused/Shoaib has made a contrary disclosure statement, to the effect that the motorcycle was provided, not by the petitioner, but by one Furkan.

Mr. Sharma argues, that admittedly the motorcycle in question had already been recovered on 18.05.2022; and, to be sure, the motorcycle was not recovered at the instance of the petitioner, who was arrested much later on 04.07.2022. It is also submitted that the motorcycle is neither registered in the petitioner’s name nor does it belong to him otherwise.

Mr. Sharma submits, that it is also the prosecution case that coaccused Vinit Goswami was hired to murder the deceased and that the weapon of offence, viz. a country-made pistol and 05 live cartridges, were provided by co-accused Amit Giri @ Badam; and no other role has been ascribed to the petitioner.

It is also submitted that in the course of his court deposition, the supposed eye-witness Ruknuddin (PW-1), which was concluded on 12.09.2024, the witness has not named the petitioner.

Mr. Sharma explains, that though the prosecution alleges that the petitioner had had several telephonic conversations with the coaccused persons, viz. Vinit Goswami and Amit Giri @ Badam, those conversations happened for the reason that both the said persons were

BAIL APPLN. 4466/2024 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 01/07/2025 at 00:35:22

Page 2 of 7

the petitioner’s neighbours from his native village; and those conversations had nothing to do with the alleged offence. Insofar as the conversations with co-accused Afsar @ Happy are concerned, it is submitted, that the petitioner was acquainted with the said person through one of the other co-accused persons.

Mr. Sharma argues, that the prosecution has not even alleged any personal enmity or other reason why the petitioner would be involved in the murder of the deceased; that admittedly the petitioner was not present at the scene of the offence at the relevant time; and that nothing has come on record to show any financial or other transaction between the petitioner and the co-accused persons. In particular, it is pointed-out, that it is not even the prosecution case that the petitioner had visited Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh alongwith other co-accused persons, where the others are alleged to have hatched the conspiracy to murder the deceased.

In the circumstances, Mr. Sharma prays that the petitioner should be granted regular bail.

Opposing the grant of bail, Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned APP appearing for the State on the other hand contends, that as per the investigation, co-accused Amit Giri @ Badam had handed-over the country-made pistol used in the commission of the offence to the petitioner, who had in-turn handed it to co-accused Vinit Goswami; and in that connection the petitioner had received Rs. 1 lac, which he then used to purchase certain electrical goods.

Ms. Arya further submits, that the petitioner had had more than 350 conversations with co-accused Vinit Goswami; more than 700

BAIL APPLN. 4466/2024 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 01/07/2025 at 00:35:22

Page 3 of 7

conversations with co-accused Amit Giri @ Badaam; and about 38 conversations with co-accused Afsar @ Happy between February 2022 and May 2022, which was the period during which the coaccused persons entered into the conspiracy to murder the deceased. Upon being queried however, Ms. Arya admits that this allegation is based only on what is disclosed in the CDRs of the relevant parties but no messages or phone recordings of those conversations have been recovered.

Ms. Arya further argues, that the CDR charts also indicate that on 19.03.2022 the petitioner was also present in Village : Bamheta in District : Ghaziabad and then again on 11.04.2022 in Darya Ganj, Delhi alongwith some of the co-accused persons, which is when further steps were taken by them for commission of the offence.

The court has also heard Mr. Nasir Kamal, learned counsel appearing for next-of-kin of the deceased, being the brother of the deceased.

Mr. Kamal submits, that the petitioner not only provided the motorcycle which was used in the commission of the murder, he was also concerned with supplying the weapon of offence to Vinit Goswami, who wielded the weapon.

Most importantly, Mr. Kamal argues, that of the 09 public witnesses cited in the charge-sheet, only 04 have deposed so far before the learned trial court; and if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he would influence or suborn those witnesses.

Upon an overall conspectus of the facts and circumstances of the case, what weighs with the court at this stage are the following considerations :

BAIL APPLN. 4466/2024 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 01/07/2025 at 00:35:22

Page 4 of 7

16.1. A perusal of the record shows that the principal allegation against the petitioner is of having provided the motorcycle, which is alleged to have been used in the commission of the offence. This allegation is based on a supplementary disclosure statement made by co-accused Vinit Goswami. Admittedly, the motorcycle was not recovered pursuant to that statement nor was it recovered pursuant to any disclosure statement made by the petitioner. In fact, another co-accused Shoaib has made a contradictory disclosure statement, saying that the motorcycle used for the offence was provided by one Furkan.

16.2. Furthermore, in his deposition, PW-1 Ruknuddin, who is claimed to be the eye-witness to the offence, and on whose complaint the said FIR was registered, has not named the petitioner.

16.3. It is also not the prosecution case that the petitioner was at all present at the scene of the crime at the relevant time; nor that he wielded the weapon.

16.4. Furthermore, it also transpires that though the prosecution is alleging extensive phone connectivity between the petitioner and some of the co-accused persons, the petitioner appears to explain that, to say that he was acquainted with 02 of the coaccused persons since they belonged to the same village and were neighbours. Furthermore, there is nothing on record by way of any phone recordings, WhatsApp chats or other messages which may give an insight into the context or content

Page 5 of 7

BAIL APPLN. 4466/2024 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 01/07/2025 at 00:35:22

of the alleged phone conversations between the petitioner and the other co-accused persons.

16.5. The petitioner’s Nominal Roll dated 30.12.2024 shows that he has suffered judicial custody as an undertrial for about 02 years and 07 months; and though he is implicated in another case registered under sections 420/467/468/471/323/ 504/506/120-B IPC at P.S.: Wave City, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, he is stated to be on bail in the said case. The petitioner’s jail conduct is shown in the nominal roll as being ‘satisfactory’.

16.6. The court is also informed that of the 60 prosecution witnesses cited in the case, only 04 have deposed so far, despite the charge-sheet having been filed on 23.08.2022. Clearly therefore, the trial will take a very long time to conclude.

Upon an overall conspectus of the facts and circumstances of the case, and considering the allegations against the petitioner, the court is persuaded to grant to the petitioner – Satish Yadav @ Kalu s/o Lt. Mange Ram Yadav – regular bail pending trial, subject to the following conditions :

17.1. The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty-five Thousand Only) with 02 sureties in the like amount from family members, to the satisfaction of the learned trial court;

17.2. The petitioner shall furnish to the Investigating Officer a cellphone number on which the petitioner may be contacted at any time and shall ensure that the number is kept active and switched-on at all times;

BAIL APPLN. 4466/2024 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 01/07/2025 at 00:35:22

Page 6 of 7

17.3. If the petitioner has a passport, he shall surrender the same to the learned trial court and shall not travel out of the country without prior permission of the learned trial court;

17.4. The petitioner shall not contact, nor visit, nor offer any inducement, threat or promise to any of the prosecution witnesses or other persons acquainted with the facts of case. The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence nor otherwise indulge in any act or omission that is unlawful or that would prejudice the proceedings in the pending trial; and

17.5. In case of any change in his residential address/contact details, the petitioner shall promptly inform the I.O. in writing.

Since the petitioner is facing trial and is therefore appearing before the learned trial court from time-to-time, it is not considered necessary to impose a reporting requirement as a condition of regular bail.

Nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the pending matter.

A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent forthwith .

The petition stands disposed-of in the above terms.

Other pending applications, if any, are also disposed-of.

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J

FEBRUARY 13, 2025

ss

BAIL APPLN. 4466/2024

Page 7 of 7

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 01/07/2025 at 00:35:22

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Bail application under S.483 BNSS 2023 for regular bail in FIR No. 191/2022 dated 18.05.2022, registered under section 302 IPC and section 27 Arms Act at P.S. Darya Ganj, Delhi (murder of Moinuddin).¶1
Prior proceeding
Murder of Moinuddin took place on 17.05.2022; petitioner arrested about 02 months later, on 04.07.2022.¶3
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's arrest followed the disclosure statement of co-accused Vinit Goswami (a supplementary disclosure) alleging that the petitioner provided the motorcycle used in the offence; co-accused Shoaib made a contrary disclosure crediting one Furkan.¶3
Prior proceeding
Motorcycle allegedly used in the offence was already recovered on 18.05.2022; it was not recovered at the petitioner's instance or pursuant to any disclosure statement made by him, and it is not registered in his name.¶4
Prior proceeding
Per petitioner's counsel: co-accused Vinit Goswami was hired to commit the murder; the weapon (country-made pistol and 05 live cartridges) was provided by co-accused Amit Giri @ Badam; no other role ascribed to petitioner.¶5
Prior proceeding
Per the State (APP): investigation indicates Amit Giri @ Badam handed the country-made pistol to the petitioner, who in turn handed it to co-accused Vinit Goswami.¶10
Prior proceeding
Per the State (APP): petitioner allegedly received Rs. 1 lac in connection with the pistol hand-over and used it to purchase electrical goods.¶10
Prior proceeding
Deposition of supposed eye-witness Ruknuddin (PW-1), on whose complaint the FIR was registered, concluded on 12.09.2024 without the witness naming the petitioner.¶6
Prior proceeding
Notice on the bail petition issued 05.12.2024; Status Reports dated 23.12.2024, 20.01.2025 and 28.01.2025 filed; Nominal Roll dated 30.12.2024 received from Jail Superintendent.¶2
Prior proceeding
Per the State (APP): alleged telephonic contacts between February 2022 and May 2022 - more than 350 conversations with Vinit Goswami, more than 700 with Amit Giri @ Badaam, and about 38 with Afsar @ Happy - during the period the co-accused allegedly entered the conspiracy.¶11
Prior proceeding
APP admitted on query that the alleged extensive telephonic contact is based only on CDRs of the relevant parties; no messages or phone recordings of those conversations were recovered.¶11
Prior proceeding
Per the State (APP), CDR charts indicate petitioner's presence alongwith some co-accused at Village Bamheta, District Ghaziabad on 19.03.2022 and at Darya Ganj, Delhi on 11.04.2022, when further steps for the offence were allegedly taken.¶12
Prior proceeding
Trial progress: of the 09 public witnesses cited in the charge-sheet, only 04 have deposed before the trial court; complainant's counsel feared witness influence/subornation if petitioner were enlarged on bail.¶15
Prior proceeding
Nominal Roll dated 30.12.2024: petitioner has been in judicial custody as an undertrial for about 02 years 07 months; implicated in another case (IPC 420/467/468/471/323/504/506/120-B, P.S. Wave City, Ghaziabad, UP) but on bail therein; jail conduct shown as 'satisfactory'.¶16.5
Prior proceeding
Of the 60 prosecution witnesses cited in the case, only 04 have deposed despite the charge-sheet being filed on 23.08.2022; the court concluded the trial will take a very long time.¶16.6