New Delhi, September 1, 2025: In a significant ruling, the Court of Ms. Kiran Gupta, Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, discharged the main accused in a high-profile Kishangarh murder case, holding that there was no prima facie material to proceed against them.
The case arose from an incident in which the complainant, while returning from Patiala House Court, was allegedly accosted by unknown assailants who fired at his car in broad daylight. During the incident, the driver, Shafiq, sustained injuries. An FIR was subsequently registered at Police Station Kishangarh under Sections 307, 120-B, 201, 174-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 25, 27, 54, and 59 of the Arms Act.
During the investigation, several accused persons were arrested, and allegations of criminal conspiracy were raised against multiple individuals, including the discharged accused. The prosecution relied primarily on disclosure statements of co-accused and CCTV footage collected from the spot.
The discharge applications were argued on behalf of the accused persons, Harender Maan and Bimlesh Maan, by Advocate Rhythm Aggarwal, alongwith Advocate Neeraj Tiwari. The defense argued that the prosecution’s case was based purely on conjecture and retaliatory allegations, lacking any credible evidence.
Adv. Rhythm Aggarwal, appearing for the accused, argued that the present matter is nothing but a cross-case to FIR No. 57/2020. She pointed out that FIR 57/2020 pertains to the brutal broad daylight murder of Late Shri Ashok Maan, Ex-MLA of the Aam Aadmi Party and uncle of the accused. It was emphasized that the present proceedings have been initiated only as a counter-blast to pressurize the accused persons into retracting their statements in the main murder case.
Adv. Rhythm Aggarwal contended that the primary allegation against the accused was possession of a revolver purportedly belonging to their late uncle was wholly unsubstantiated, with no proof or licensing records produced by the complainant to establish the existence of such a weapon.
Advocate Rhythm Aggarwal, appearing for the accused, also addressed the prosecution’s allegation regarding the recovery of a mobile phone. She submitted that the entire claim was baseless, as at no point during the investigation was any mobile handset, SIM card, or related electronic evidence recovered from the possession or control of the accused persons. The defense emphasized that the prosecution failed to produce even a single piece of corroborative material connecting the accused with any mobile device allegedly linked to the incident. In the absence of such recovery or technical evidence, the allegation of tampering or using a mobile phone stands wholly unsubstantiated and cannot be relied upon to implicate the accused.
Adv. Rhythm Aggarwal has further argued that the prosecution’s reliance on disclosure statements of a co-accused was to be legally untenable. It was submitted that such statements, without independent corroboration or recovery, are inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and cannot form the basis of framing charges.
However, after hearing arguments and examining the record, the Court held that no prima facie evidencewas available to establish conspiracy againstManjeet Singh @ Mahal, Harender Mann, Bimlesh Mann, Sonu @ Mukesh, and Ashish @ Bittu. The Court observed that except for uncorroborated disclosure statements, no independent material such as call records, recoveries, or corroborative evidence had been placed on record to substantiate the allegations of conspiracy. Accordingly, these accused were discharged of all offences including Section 120B IPC and allied charges.
