New Delhi, February 15, 2024: In a significant development, the Delhi High Court has granted regular bail to Vikas Balguer @ Shammi and Ashish Balguer, who were accused in a 2015 murder case. The decision was pronounced by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikas Mahajan on February 15, 2024, after the petitions were reserved for judgment on January 31, 2024. The petitioners had been in custody for over seven years and eight months in connection with FIR No. 1187/2015, registered under Sections 302 (murder), 308 (attempt to commit culpable homicide), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), 212 (harboring offenders), and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at the Hauz Khas Police Station.

Background of the Case

The case dates back to the intervening night of October 21-22, 2015, when a violent altercation broke out at the Shanghai-30 Bar and Restaurant in Hauz Khas, Delhi. According to the prosecution, the incident began when a quarrel erupted between two groups over dancing on the floor of the bar. The dispute was initially resolved by the bar’s bouncers, and the complainant, Rohit Bansal, along with his friends—Vineet, Sonu, Rupesh, and Monu—left the bar. However, Rohit later realized he had forgotten his mobile phone at the bar and returned with Rupesh to retrieve it.

Upon their return, they allegedly encountered the accused group, who blocked their way and attacked them with cement bricks, rods, and a baseball bat. The assault resulted in the death of Rupesh, while Rohit sustained injuries. The police registered an FIR based on Rohit’s complaint, and the accused, including Vikas Balguer @ Shammi and Ashish Balguer, were arrested.

Submissions by the Petitioners

Vikas Balguer @ Shammi (Bail Application No. 511/2023)

Vikas Balguer’s counsel, Mr. Varun Singh, argued that the prosecution’s case was weak, as key eyewitnesses had turned hostile during the trial. He highlighted that Rohit Bansal (PW-2), the complainant, had initially attributed specific roles to Vikas in the assault but later retracted his statement during cross-examination, claiming he could not identify the assailants due to his injuries. Similarly, other eyewitnesses, including Sagar Sharma (PW-3), Jitender Sharma (PW-4), and Maninder @ Monu (PW-5), either failed to identify Vikas or contradicted their earlier statements.

The counsel also pointed out that Vikas had been in custody for over seven years and eight months, and the trial was unlikely to conclude soon. He cited Supreme Court judgments, including Praveen Rathore vs. State of Rajasthan and Mukesh Kumar vs. State of Delhi, to argue that prolonged incarceration without a conviction warranted bail.

Ashish Balguer (Bail Application No. 3184/2023)

Ashish Balguer’s counsel, Mr. Jairaj Singh, sought bail on the grounds of parity, noting that a co-accused, Anil Kumar Yadav, had already been granted bail. He emphasized that Ashish had been incarcerated for over seven years and that the prosecution had examined 42 out of 45 witnesses, with the trial likely to take considerable time to conclude. The counsel also argued that Ashish had no criminal record and that the only role attributed to him was beating the deceased with his fists and legs.

State’s Opposition to Bail

The State, represented by Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, opposed the bail applications, arguing that the petitioners were charged with a serious offense under Section 302 IPC. The State contended that the long period of incarceration could not be the sole ground for granting bail, especially in cases involving grave crimes. The State also highlighted that both petitioners had refused to participate in a Test Identification Parade (TIP) and that Vikas Balguer had a prior criminal case (FIR No. 436/2017 under Sections 376/506 IPC) registered against him, though he was later acquitted.

The complainant’s counsel, Mr. Harsh Khanna, argued that the petitioners had a premeditated role in the crime and that the manner of the assault indicated their intent to cause fatal injuries. He also played CCTV footage in court to assert that the petitioners were present at the scene of the crime.

Court’s Observations and Decision

Justice Vikas Mahajan, after hearing both sides, noted that while detailed appreciation of evidence was not appropriate at the bail stage, the court could consider whether a prima facie case existed for granting bail. The court observed that several eyewitnesses had either turned hostile or failed to identify the petitioners, and their testimonies were inconsistent. For instance:

• Rohit Bansal (PW-2) initially accused Vikas of assault but later claimed he could not identify the attackers due to his injuries.
• Sagar Sharma (PW-3) stated that he could not see who was beating whom during the fight.
• Jitender Sharma (PW-4) identified Ashish based on CCTV footage but could not confirm Vikas’s presence at the scene.
• Maninder @ Monu (PW-5) testified that Vikas, Ashish, and another co-accused were not present during the fight.

The court also noted that the petitioners had been in custody for over seven years, and the trial was unlikely to conclude soon. It emphasized that prolonged incarceration without a conviction could lead to grave injustice, especially if the accused were ultimately acquitted.

Regarding Vikas Balguer’s prior criminal case, the court accepted his counsel’s submission that he had been acquitted in that matter, and the State did not dispute this claim. The court also noted that Ashish Balguer had a clean criminal record.

Conditions for Bail

The court granted bail to both petitioners, subject to the following conditions:

1. They must furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 each with two sureties of the same amount.
2. They must appear before the court as and when required.
3. They must provide their permanent address and mobile numbers to the investigating officer and keep their phones operational at all times.
4. They must not engage in any criminal activity or contact any witnesses or the complainant.

Conclusion

The court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail application and should not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case. The petitions were disposed of, and the order was forwarded to the concerned jail superintendent for compliance.

This decision marks a significant relief for Vikas Balguer and Ashish Balguer, who have spent over seven years in custody awaiting trial. However, the case highlights the challenges of prolonged trials and the impact of delayed justice on the accused and their families. The trial will continue, and the final verdict will determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.