Dismissed¶¶25

Tarun v. the State of NCT of Delhi

Delhi HC12 May 2026BAIL APPLN./998/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

BAIL APPLN. 998/2026, High Court of Delhi, order dated 12.05.2026 by Justice Saurabh Banerjee: regular bail under Section 483 BNSS 2023 refused to applicant Tarun, arrested 08.02.2024 in FIR No.49/2024 PS Chhawla under IPC Ss. 365/302/201/120B/34 for allegedly abducting Akash Pandir (missing since 31.01.2024; burnt body found 03.02.2024 at Bulandshahr, U.P.). Prosecution relied on CCTV footages, complainant's identification, recovery of the Alto car at the applicant's instance and CDR placement; defence urged non-naming in the FIR, failed FSL facial recognition and disputed identity of the body - court held such trial questions best left open; 1 of 25 witnesses examined; application dismissed, observations expressly without bearing on the trial.

What did the court decide?

The allegations involved are grave and heinous in nature. ¶¶19

Tarun Vs the State of NCT of Delhi — Bail and Remand | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether regular bail should be granted to the applicant (Tarun) under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 in proceedings arising out of FIR No.49/2024, PS: Chhawla (Sections 365/302/201/120B/34 IPC).

¶¶10

Court's answer

The allegations involved are grave and heinous in nature.

¶¶19

Ratio / Principle

A bare perusal of the material on record prima facie shows involvement of the applicant in a central role, considering the CCTV footages and the recovery of the vehicle involved; there is cogent material to indicate a strong case against the applicant.

¶¶19

Key takeaways

In a regular-bail application, matters of evidentiary value and questions engaging the trial are best left open and ought not to be gone into; accordingly, issues qua physical details of the dead body and threadbare analysis of the FSL Report need not be adverted to at this stage.ratio¶¶19
The trial is at a nascent stage with only 1 of 25 prosecution witnesses examined; coupled with the history of FIRs between the relatives, the proximity inter se the parties and their families, and the manner of commission of the offence, the possibility of the trial being derailed, of witnesses being tampered with through fear/threat/harm/intimidation, and of evidence being compromised cannot be ruled out at this stage.ratio¶¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Saurabh Banerjee, J., 12.05.2026) dismisses Tarun's regular-bail application under S. 483 BNSS 2023 in FIR No.49/2024, PS: Chhawla (Ss. 365/302/201/120B/34 IPC) concerning the abduction and killing/burning of Akash Pandir: the record prima facie shows the applicant in a central role on the CCTV footages and the recovery of the vehicle involved; the trial is nascent (only 1 of 25 witnesses examined); the history of FIRs and proximity inter se the families raise the likelihood of witness intimidation/evidence tampering; evidentiary questions (FSL facial recognition, identity of the dead body) are left open for trial; not a fit case for bail at this stage, with observations confined to the bail application.

¶1

$~7

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- BAIL APPLN. 998/2026

¶4

TARUN .....Applicant

¶5

Through: Mr. Anirudh Yadav, Mr. Jitender Gupta and Mr. Deepak Rohilla, Advocates versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Raghuinder Verma, APP with Mr. Aditya Vikram Singh, Ms. Upasana Bakshi, Mr. Gourav Singh and Ms. Nikita, Advs. with Insp. Surender Kr., PS: Chhawla Mr. Sarthak Karol, Standing Counsel (DHCLSC), Ms. Neelakshi Bhadauria, Mr. Shashank Sharma, Advs. for kith and kins of deceased Mr. Mukesh Kr. Sharma, Ms. Vishakha, Ms. Anjali and Mr. S. Ishwarya, Advs. for Complainant

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 12.05.2026

¶10

By virtue of the present application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the applicant seeks grant of regular bail in proceedings arising out of FIR No.49/2024 dated 02.02.2024 registered at PS: Chhawla under Sections 365/302/201/ 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC ).

¶11

Succinctly put , as per prosecution, a missing report was filed by the complainant on 01.02.2024 since he was unable to locate his younger

¶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 18/05/2026 at 10:51:23

¶14

brother/ Akash Pandir who had gone to the gym on the previous day, i.e. 31.01.2024 at about 06:00PM and not returned home since. Upon checking the nearby CCTV footages, Akash Pandir was seen being forcibly removed from his motorcycle and taken away in a car by three people. Thereafter on 03.02.2024, one burnt dead body was found in Bulandshahr, U.P., which was identified as Akash Pandir by the complainant and his family. During the course of investigation, on the basis of the CCTV footages, the applicant herein and the other accused persons, who are all relatives of the complainant, were arrested on 08.02.2024.

¶15

In these facts, learned counsel for the applicant primarily submits that the applicant is a law-abiding citizen who has been wrongly implicated in the present case at a later point of time as he has not even been named in the FIR. He further submits that the FSL Report of the CCTV footages shows that facial recognition could not be carried out due to low pixel resolution, as also the identity of the dead body is disputed based on the age, height, time of death, etc.. Hence, as per him no case is made out against the applicant and he ought to be enlarged on bail.

¶16

Per contra , learned APP for State submits that the applicant can be clearly seen in the CCTV footages alongwith two other persons abducting Akash Pandir and putting him in an Alto car, wherein he has even been unambiguously identified by the complainant in his testimony before the learned Trial Court, and, in fact, the said Alto car has been recovered at his instance. He further submits that the CDR of the applicant also places him at the scene of the abduction at the relevant time period alongwith the two other persons seen on the CCTV footages. He, therefore, submits that

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

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 18/05/2026 at 10:51:23

¶19

there is every reason to believe it was indeed the applicant who undertook an active role in the commission of the offence. He lastly submits that the trial is at a critical stage where key witnesses are remaining to be examined and release of the applicant on bail could prejudice the same. 5. Learned counsel for the complainant has handed over a copy of written synopsis, which is taken on record. Based thereon and supplementing the arguments of learned APP, he submits that the present is a premeditated and conspiratorial case of heinous murder and burning that too as a result of prior enmity between the relatives, which is evident from the earlier FIR lodged by the applicant’s family against the complainant’s family thus showing clear motive. He further submits that only 1 out of 25 witness of the prosecution has been examined so far, and there is every likelihood of the applicant engaging in witness intimidation and/ or evidence tampering if the present application is allowed. 6. Heard and perused the record. 7. The allegations involved herein are grave and heinous in nature. In fact, a bare perusal of the material on record prima facie shows involvement of the applicant, that too in a central role, considering the CCTV footages as also the recovery of the vehicle involved. Regarding the grounds urged by the applicant to controvert the same, needless to say, this Court is in the midst of an application whereby the applicant is seeking grant of regular bail, whence matters of evidentiary values, and/ or those engaging questions of trial are best left open and ought not to be gone into. As such, issues qua physical details of the dead body, threadbare analysis of the FSL Report, or like, which are trivial need not

¶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 18/05/2026 at 10:51:23

¶22

be adverted to at this stage. Today, based on the materials on record, there is cogent material to indicate a strong case against the applicant.

¶23

Further, the trial is at a nascent stage, with only 1 out of 25 prosecution witnesses so far examined. The same, coupled with the history of FIRs between the relatives as also the proximity inter se the parties and their families involved, as well as considering the manner of commission of the present offence, the possibility of the trial being derailed, witnesses being tampered with by subjecting them to fear/ threat/ harm/ intimidation and the hampering of evidence compromised cannot be ruled out at this stage.

¶24

Therefore, taking a cumulative view of the overall facts and circumstances involved, especially the nature of the offence, the role of the applicant and the prima facie case against him, the stage of the trial and the proximity with the complainant, this Court does not see a fit case for granting him bail at this stage.

¶25

Accordingly, the present application is dismissed.

¶26

Needless to say, expression of view(s) on merits hereinabove, if any, is solely for the purposes of adjudication of the present application and shall have no bearing on the overall merit(s)/ trial involved.

¶27

MAY 12, 2026/So

¶28

This is a digitally signed order.

¶29

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 18/05/2026 at 10:51:23

Tarun v. the State of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tarun v. the State of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandan Kumar Vs State NCT of Delhi

Chandan Kumar Vs State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Ashish @ Monty Vs the State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Sanjay Aggarwal Vs Aradhna Enterprises

Diksha Chaturvedi & Anr. Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Faheem @ Guddu Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi