Ajay Sharma Granted Regular Bail by Delhi High Court in FIR 67/2020, Despite Alleged Role in Conspiracy and Murder.

Headnote:

The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to Ajay Sharma, accused in FIR No. 67/2020 registered at P.S. Kanjhawala for offences under Sections 302/201/120B/34 IPC read with Section 25 Arms Act. The applicant had been in judicial custody since October 16, 2020. The Court considered the completion of investigation, framing of charges, limited public witnesses, and the duration of custody, while observing that the primary evidence against the applicant, including CDR records and disclosure statements, would require detailed scrutiny at trial.

Background:

Ajay Sharma, a resident of Rajiv Nagar, Begumpur, Delhi, was implicated in the murder of Anchal Kumar on February 19, 2020. The crime scene included a bullet-riddled Scorpio car and scattered shells. Despite multiple investigations, eyewitnesses were absent, and the primary witnesses were relatives of the deceased. Sharma was accused of being an active conspirator, participating in recce of the deceased, and coordinating with co-accused via mobile communications. A supplementary chargesheet listed him in Column 12, reflecting an active role in the conspiracy.

Factual Matrix:

1. The deceased, Anchal Kumar, was attacked by assailants following information passed by co-accused and jailed conspirator Deepak Dabas @ Teetar.
2. Multiple co-accused were arrested; some were later deceased.
3. Mobile phone evidence and CDRs allegedly implicated Sharma in planning and coordination.
4. Charges under Sections 302, 120B, 34 IPC and Arms Act were framed; trial was ongoing with only one public witness examined of 49 listed.

Arguments:

1. Applicant: Contended lack of direct evidence against him; CDR evidence was registered in co-accused’s name; disclosure statements are inadmissible; long custodial period (approx. 5 years).
2. Prosecution: Asserted applicant’s active role in planning, recce, and coordination of the murder; highlighted gravity of the offence and possible influence on witnesses.

Judicial Analysis:

1. Court referenced precedents:
2. Azad v. State of GNCT of Delhi, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1769 – CDR can corroborate but cannot solely establish conviction.
3. Saloni Arora v. State, 2009 SCC OnLine Del 1669 – Mere telephonic communication with co-accused not incriminating by itself.
4. Considered trial stage, number of public witnesses, completion of investigation, family ties, and low risk of absconding.
5. Found that the evidence against Sharma required trial scrutiny and CDR evidence alone cannot justify continued incarceration.

Order:

1. Regular bail granted subject to conditions:
2. Personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety of equal amount.
3. Appear before the court as required.
4. Mobile number to be kept in working condition and shared with IO.
5. No involvement in criminal activities or intimidation of witnesses.
6. Inform Court and IO in case of change of residence.
7. Copy to Jail Superintendent and Trial Court.

Conclusion:

Ajay Sharma was granted regular bail after nearly five years in custody, considering procedural safeguards, trial stage, and limited risk factors. The case remains pending trial, and all evidence, including CDR and disclosure statements, will be examined during proceedings.

Case Title:

Ajay Sharma vs. State NCT of Delhi

Court:

High Court of Delhi, New Delhi

Bench:

Hon’ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna

Bail Application No.:

BAIL APPLN. 2815/2025