Delhi Court Denies Bail To Accused In Khanpur Broad-Daylight Shooting

A Delhi court has denied bail to an accused in a broad-daylight shooting, observing that the assailants had used raincoats and helmets to hide their identities but were subsequently identified through CCTV evidence and physical clues, including their footwear.

The alleged shooter was linked through the same shoes and clothes seen before and after the incident, while the accused was linked through the slippers he was seen wearing while fleeing, court noted.

Additional Sessions Judge Hargurvarinder Singh Jaggi of the South District, Saket Courts, said these circumstances, along with the discarded raincoats, helmets and getaway motorcycle, formed a “continuous, unbroken chain of physical and visual evidence” linking the accused to the March 18 shooting in Khanpur, in which a man suffered multiple gunshot injuries.

Court was hearing a regular bail application filed after the chargesheet was submitted in the case registered at Neb Sarai police station under Sections 109(1), 61(2) and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) [corresponding to Sections 307, 120B and 201 of the IPC], along with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The accused was arrested in Goa on March 21 and had remained in judicial custody since then.

CCTV footage showed shooting and subsequent escape

According to the prosecution case, a PCR call was received at around 3.51 pm on March 18 regarding a gunshot incident near J.J. Colony, Khanpur. Police found that the complainant had suffered multiple gunshot injuries to his right arm and the right side of his chest. His medical examination recorded three distinct circular gunshot wounds.

The prosecution alleged that the accused and another person had conspired to kill the complainant. The other accused allegedly fired at the complainant while the present accused drove a Splendor motorcycle. The prosecution further alleged that the accused had arranged the motorcycle, helmets and raincoats used during the operation.

During the bail hearing, CCTV footage filed with the chargesheet was played before the court. The footage at 3.51 pm showed the motorcycle allegedly being driven by the accused, with the shooter riding pillion and both wearing helmets and raincoats. The footage then showed the two parking the motorcycle near a wall, removing their helmets and raincoats and changing clothes.

Court noted that the accused was subsequently captured fleeing the area by a public bus while wearing a mask, a black T-shirt bearing the number “66” and grey/black shorts. The discarded raincoats and helmets were also recovered and matched the CCTV footage, court said.

Shoes, slippers provided crucial link

The accused's counsel argued that there was no direct identification because the persons in the CCTV footage had concealed their faces. It was also submitted that no weapon, ammunition, motorcycle or other incriminating article had been recovered from the accused or at his instance. The defence further argued that his implication rested on disclosure statements of a co-accused.

Court, however, found physical and visual links which it described as “giveaway facts”. It noted that CCTV footage captured the accused wearing slippers while fleeing, and that this matched his earlier surveillance and clothing profile.

Court also considered the discarded raincoats and helmets recovered from the area near MB Road and the Splendor motorcycle found abandoned near Pul Prahladpur. Taken together, these circumstances, it said, formed a “continuous, unbroken chain of physical and visual evidence”.

Court rejects parity with co-accused

The accused also sought bail on the ground of parity with another accused who had already been granted bail. Court rejected this argument, holding that the roles attributed to the two were materially different.

Court said the other accused was allegedly a distant conspirator whose role was confined to the secondary supply of the weapon and who was not present at the crime scene. In contrast, the present accused was allegedly physically present, drove the getaway vehicle and took steps to destroy evidence.

Court also took note of the prosecution's apprehension that the accused could influence witnesses, as he and the complainant lived in the same neighbourhood. It said concerns regarding dissuading prosecution witnesses and threats to the complainant could not be ignored.

Judge Jaggi noted that bail proceedings should not become a “mini-trial” and that courts are required to examine the material only for determining whether a prima facie case exists. However, after examining the physical and electronic evidence, court found sufficient objective links to decline bail at this stage.

Court accordingly dismissed the bail application, clarifying that its observations were confined to deciding the bail plea and would not be treated as findings on the merits of the case.

Case title: State v. Neeraj alias Bharat

Order date: September 7, 2026

Judge: Additional Sessions Judge Hargurvarinder Singh Jaggi