Dismissed¶21

Afzal @ Tammi v. State (Govt of Nct, Delhi)

Delhi HC20 May 2025BAIL APPLN./652/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Regular bail is refused because, prima facie, there are serious allegations against the applicant which at this stage cannot be said to be without any material. ¶18

Afzal @ Tammi Vs State (Govt of Nct, Delhi) — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, AFZAL @ TAMMI, is entitled to regular bail in FIR No. 244/2020, P.S. Kamla Market, registered for offences under Sections 302/147/149/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. +2 more

¶1

Court's answer

Regular bail is refused because, prima facie, there are serious allegations against the applicant which at this stage cannot be said to be without any material.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The role attributed to the applicant is similar to that of co-accused Asif@Sammi, whose bail application was dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court; parity therefore weighs against grant of bail.

¶16

Key takeaways

While considering bail, the Court would not be justified in going into the evidence on record at such depth as to ascertain the probability of conviction by appreciating hyper technical arguments; that is a matter of trial.ratio¶11
The discrepancy in the applicant being named only in the supplementary statement cannot be made a ground to enlarge him on bail at this stage, because the deceased in his last statement before death — which would be in the nature of a dying declaration — specifically named the applicant as one of the assailants; whether the discrepancy aids the applicant is to be tested at trial and considered at final arguments.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Amit Mahajan, J.) dismisses the regular bail application of Afzal @ Tammi in BAIL APPLN. 652/2025 arising from FIR No. 244/2020, P.S. Kamla Market, for offences under Sections 302/147/149/34 IPC (initially under Sections 307/34, added to 302/147/149/34 after the death of the injured taxi driver Vakil Mehto on 13.10.2020). Despite over four years of incarceration and examination of only 17 of 32 witnesses, bail is denied because: (i) the deceased's last statement before death, in the nature of a dying declaration, specifically named the applicant as an assailant even though he was omitted from the initial FIR statement; (ii) blood-stained broken bamboo sticks were recovered at the instance of the applicant and co-accused, with the FSL report matching the blood to that of the deceased; (iii) the applicant's role is similar to co-accused Asif@Sammi, whose bail application was dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench; and (iv) the offence under Section 302 IPC carries liability to imprisonment for life. The Court holds that at the bail stage it cannot appreciate evidence in such depth as to assess probability of conviction, leaving the discrepancy in naming to trial; long incarceration alone is not a ground for bail in such a grave case.

¶1

$~14

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

BAIL APPLN. 652/2025 AFZAL @ TAMMI .....Applicant Through: Mr. Ajay Verma and Ms. Bhoomika Uppal, Advs.

¶4

versus

¶5

STATE (GOVT OF NCT, DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Ms. Richa Dhawan, APP for the State with SI Virender, PS Kamla Market.

¶6

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

¶7

% 20.05.2025

¶8

The present application is filed seeking regular bail in FIR No. 244/2020 dated 08.10.2020 registered at Police Station Kamla Market for offences under Sections 302/147/149/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘ IPC ’).

¶9

The FIR was registered on a statement given by Vakil Mehto (hereafter ‘the deceased’) who was a taxi driver. It is alleged that the deceased had enmity with one Munna @ Aaltay who ran a travel agency. It is alleged that on 07.10.2020 at about 5 pm when the deceased was on his way home, and had stopped his vehicle near Minto Road, he was attacked by co-accused Munna and Sammi with lathi and danda . It is alleged that when the deceased attempted to save himself three more persons namely –Sammi, Aariya and Vicky came out of a Scorpio and gave beatings to the deceased. Thereafter, the accused persons fled from the spot. Pursuant to the incident, the deceased was

¶10

BAIL APPLN. 652/2025

¶11

Page 1 of 6

¶12

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 00:22:22

¶13

taken to the hospital by his son.

¶14

In his supplementary statement, the deceased named the applicant as one of the assailants. During the course of the investigation, co-accused persons – Asif @ Sammi, Arif and the applicant were arrested on 09.10.2020, and at their instance blood-stained broken bamboo sticks were recovered. The FSL report obtained showed that the blood present on the broken lathi matched with the blood of the deceased. 4. The FIR was initially registered under Sections 307/34 of the IPC. However, since the deceased succumbed to his injuries on 13.10.2020, Sections 302/147/149/34 of the IPC were added. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the applicant was not named as one of the assailants in the statement given by the deceased which led to the registration of the FIR, and was only named in the subsequent statement recorded by the Investigating Officer. He submits that the applicant has been languishing in jail for the last more than 4 years, and prays that the applicant be enlarged on bail on account of delay in trial.

¶15

Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State vehemently opposes the grant of any relief to the applicant. She submits that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature. She submits that at the instance of the applicant and other co-accused persons, blood-stained broken bamboo sticks were recovered, and that the FSL report manifests that the blood on the broken lathis and dandas matches with the blood of the deceased. She submits that the deceased, prior to his

¶16

BAIL APPLN. 652/2025

¶17

Page 2 of 6

¶18

¶19

death, had specifically named the applicant as one of the assailants, and prays that considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the present application be dismissed.

¶20

I have heard the counsels and perused the material on record.

¶21

The Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments has consistently emphasised the factors to be taken into account when considering bail application, which include: (i) the nature or gravity of the offense; (ii) the character of the evidence and circumstances unique to the accused; (iii) the likelihood of the accused evading justice; (iv) the potential impact of the release on prosecution witnesses and its societal repercussions; and (v) the probability of the accused engaging in tampering.

¶22

At the outset, it is noted that the offence charged against the applicant is heinous and grave. It is the case of the prosecution that the applicant along with the co-accused brutally murdered the deceased due to some prior enmity between them.

¶23

The learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant was only named in the supplementary statement recorded by the Investigating Officer, and not in the initial statement that led to the registration of the FIR. He contends that the benefit of such inconsistency should be afforded to the applicant.

¶24

It is pertinent to note that while considering an application of the accused seeking bail, the Court would not be justified in going into evidence on record at such depth so as to ascertain the probability of conviction of the accused by appreciating hyper technical arguments as the same is a matter of trial.

¶25

Page 3 of 6

¶26

BAIL APPLN. 652/2025

¶27

¶28

The grant of bail should not be arbitrary or whimsical. Being conscious of the fact that individual liberty holds immense significance, it is incumbent upon the Courts to examine and evaluate, albeit briefly, factors such as the prima facie case, the nature and severity of the crime and the accused’s likelihood to tamper with evidence, among other considerations as noted above.

¶29

From a bare perusal of the material on record, it is prima facie evident that prior to his death, the deceased had specifically named the applicant to be one of the assailants. It is further the case of the prosecution that at the instance of the applicant and other co-accused persons, blood-stained broken bamboo sticks were recovered, and the FSL report showed that the blood on the broken lathis and dandas matched with the blood of the deceased. Whether such discrepancy as has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant would aid the case of the applicant or not would be tested during the course of the trial and would be considered at the time of final arguments. The same cannot be made a ground to enlarge the applicant on bail at this stage when the deceased in his last statement before death which would be in the nature of dying declaration has specifically named applicant as one of the assailants. Whether such statement could ultimately lead to conviction would be subject matter of trial but cannot be ignored at this stage.

¶30

The learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the applicant has been languishing in custody for the last more than 4 years, and that the trial is not likely to conclude in a timely manner. On being pointedly asked, it is informed that 17 out of

¶31

Page 4 of 6

¶32

BAIL APPLN. 652/2025

¶33

¶34

32 witnesses have been examined.

¶35

While the applicant has spent a considerable period of time in custody, however, it cannot be ignored that the applicant has also been charged for an offence under Section 302 of the IPC. The applicant, if convicted, would be sentenced to imprisonment for life. For this reason, long period of incarceration alone cannot be a ground to grant bail to the applicant at this stage.

¶36

At this stage, it is also pointed out that the bail application preferred by co-accused Asif@Sammi has been dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The role attributed to the applicant is similar to that of the co-accused Asif@Sammi. 17. It is pertinent to mention that while deciding the question of bail, the Court must carefully balance the individual’s right to liberty with the interests of justice. While the presumption of innocence and the right to liberty are fundamental principles of law, they must be considered in conjunction with the gravity of the offence and its impact on society. 18. Accordingly, taking into account the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, and material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that prima facie , there are serious allegations against the applicant which at this stage cannot be said to be without any material.

¶37

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant at this juncture. 20. It is made clear that the observations made in the present case are only for the purpose of considering the bail application and should not influence the outcome of the trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

¶38

Page 5 of 6

¶39

BAIL APPLN. 652/2025

¶40

¶41