Sanam Dagar's plea for bail rejected; distinct role and prolonged custody cited in court's decision.
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has denied bail to Sanam Dagar, an accused in a high-profile attempted murder and arms act case. The decision was made on September 30, 2026, by Justice Girish Kathpalia, who presided over the case involving a shooting incident that took place in a gymnasium.
Sanam Dagar, along with associates, allegedly entered a gym and opened fire, injuring a victim with three bullets from his pistol. The entire incident was captured on CCTV, which played a crucial role in the court’s decision. The court noted that Dagar was distinctly identified in the footage, wearing an orange t-shirt and firing the shots that caused injuries.
The petitioner's counsel, Mr. Parveen Tyagi, argued for bail on the grounds of parity with a co-accused, Sumit @ Kalu, who had been granted bail, and the prolonged incarceration of Dagar. However, the court highlighted the distinct roles of the accused, emphasizing that while Dagar’s firearm caused injuries, Sumit's pistol jammed and did not function.
The court also addressed the argument of long custody, pointing out that delays in the trial were attributable to the defense counsel’s actions, including failing to appear for cross-examinations. This misuse of the process was cited as a reason to reject the bail plea.
Furthermore, the court dismissed the argument regarding the examination of public witnesses, stating that the unchallenged testimony of the injured witness and the clear depiction of the crime in the CCTV footage were compelling reasons to deny bail.
Ultimately, the court concluded that given the circumstances, it was not a fit case for granting bail, thereby dismissing the application.
Bottom Line :
Bail - Regular bail in attempt to murder and Arms Act case declined - Parity with co-accused not available where role of applicant was distinct and firearm used by applicant caused injuries - Long custody by itself not a ground when delay in trial was attributable to defence and applicant had remained Proclaimed Offender - Examination of public witnesses not sufficient in face of unchallenged testimony of injured witness and CCTV footage depicting occurrence.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 307, 120B, 174A, 34 of the Penal Code, 1860; Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act, 1959
Sanam Dagar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2989268
