Read Time: 04 minutes
The case pertained to an alleged firing incident at Om Villa, West Punjabi Bagh, owned by former MLA Mr. Deep Malhotra. The complainant, security guard Yogesh Kumar, reported hearing gunshots and witnessing two unidentified assailants fire multiple rounds at the main gate before escaping. The police arrested multiple accused, including Nitish (the applicant), linking them to organized crime networks such as the ‘Gogi Gang’ and the ‘Lawrence Bishnoi Gang’.
The Delhi High Court, recently, granted bail to an alleged member of the Lawrence Bishnoi gang in connection with a firing incident outside the residence of former MLA Deep Malhotra. The bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula presided over the matter.
The prosecution charged Nitish under Sections 336, 307, 482, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The chargesheet indicated that the attack was orchestrated as an act of gang rivalry and linked to extortion threats allegedly made by fugitive gangster Goldy Brar.
Advocate Lewish Edward, representing Nitish, argued that Nitish was falsely implicated. It was argued that the prosecution failed to establish direct possession of firearms by Nitish. It was also asserted that the Test Identification Parade (TIP) yielded no positive identification.
The court noted that the investigation was complete and the charge sheet filed, and Nitish's continued detention was deemed unnecessary. Additionally, evidentiary gaps weakened the prosecution’s case—ballistic reports did not confirm that the alleged weapon was used in the crime, and CCTV footage was inconclusive. Further, the complainant refused to identify Nitish, citing fear.
“The case against him thus, primarily rests on the disclosure statements of the co-accused and the CDR analysis. Whether the coaccused’s statements are sufficient to implicate the Applicant will be determined during trial. At this juncture, the Applicant can be given benefit of doubt”, the court observed.
The court also noted that co-accused individuals were already granted bail, reinforcing the principle of parity. Moreover, Nitish had spent over a year in custody without any reported misconduct. To balance public safety and individual rights, the court imposed stringent conditions, including mandatory police reporting and travel restrictions.
“Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that the Applicant does not have any criminal antecedents, the Court is inclined to enlarge the Applicant on bail on furnishing a personal bond for a sum of INR 50,000/- with one surety of the like amount”, the court added.
For Petitioner: Advocates Lewish Edward and P. VigneshFor State: Additional Public Prosecutors Mukesh Kumar and Amit AhlawatCase Title: Nitish v State (BAIL APPLN. 3618/2024)
Please Login or Register
