No Bail for Accused in Stabbing Death; Delhi High Court Cites Facilitation of Crime and Unsatisfactory Conduct.
08 July 2025
Murder Homicide >> Criminal Law
In Mustkeen Mota v/s The State Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi a ruling on an application for regular bail filed by an individual identified as the applicant, in connection with FIR No. 208/2022, registered at PS IP Estate, Delhi. The applicant faces charges under Sections 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), 120B (criminal conspiracy), and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, along with Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.
The prosecution's case stems from the murder of Farman on June 12, 2022. The deceased's father, Md. Idreesh, reported that his son's strained marriage to Aliya, exacerbated by Aliya's sister Samreen and her husband Raj Kumar Bhola, led to the fatal altercation. Raj Kumar allegedly attacked Farman with a knife. Idreesh claimed that Raj Kumar then called the applicant, Mustkeen, instructing him to ensure the death of both Farman and Idreesh. Mustkeen then allegedly assaulted the already injured Farman, while Raj Kumar attacked Idreesh. An eyewitness, Sonu Mogli, corroborated that both Raj Kumar and Mustkeen stabbed Farman.
Investigation revealed Farman died from multiple stab wounds. Raj Kumar, Mustkeen, and Samreen were arrested. Raj Kumar admitted to conspiring with Samreen to kill Farman and Idreesh due to personal enmity. CCTV footage and call records supported the conspiracy claims. Blood-stained clothes, shoes, and the weapons (knives) were recovered at the instance of Raj Kumar and Mustkeen. CCTV footage reportedly shows six individuals, including Raj Kumar and Mustkeen, stabbing Farman.
The applicant's counsel argued for bail, citing over two and a half years of custody and the death of the complainant, Md. Idreesh. They contended that the sole eyewitness, PW-1 Sonu Mogli, could not identify the applicant in blurred CCTV footage or during trial. The counsel also highlighted that co-accused Samreen was granted bail and that PW-4's testimony suggested the applicant only restrained the deceased, not inflicted stab wounds, indicating a secondary role.
The prosecution opposed bail, emphasizing the applicant's active involvement in the conspiracy, call recordings between co-accused, recovery of blood-stained items and weapons at the applicant's instance, and the clear depiction of the applicant stabbing Farman in CCTV footage.
The court, after reviewing arguments and evidence, acknowledged that some witnesses (PW-1 and PW-3) did not fully support the prosecution's case on material aspects. However, it placed significant weight on the testimony of PW-4, who stated that the applicant, Mustkeen, physically restrained the deceased while co-accused Raj Kumar repeatedly stabbed him. The court concluded that even if the applicant did not inflict the stab wounds directly, his actions constituted active participation and facilitation of the murder.
Furthermore, the court noted the recovery of two knives at the instance of both Raj Kumar and Mustkeen, which were identified as the weapons used in the crime. The applicant's unsatisfactory jail conduct, including multiple punishments for possessing prohibited articles and misbehaving with staff, and involvement in another criminal case, were also considered.
Citing the Supreme Court's stance against granting bail in serious offenses once the trial commences and witnesses are being examined, the court dismissed the bail application. It emphasized the seriousness of the allegations, the specific role attributed by PW-4, the recovery of the weapon, and the applicant's prior conduct.