‘No Incriminating Evidence Found’: Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Businessman in Alleged Conspiracy Case
Kiran Raj
The Delhi High Court, Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, has granted bail to businessman Rajesh Breja, who was accused of conspiring to commit murder under Sections 120B and 115 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The court stated that the investigation was complete, the charge sheet had been filed, and there was no likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence or fleeing the judicial process.
The case originated from an FIR (No. 646/2023) registered at Police Station Paschim Vihar East, New Delhi, on August 24, 2023, based on a complaint filed by Sunil Mohan Bajaj and his sons, Raghavendra Mohan Bajaj and Aditya Mohan Bajaj. The complaint alleged that a co-accused, Nikhil, informed Raghavendra that Rajesh Breja had paid co-accused Mohit a sum of Rs. 3-4 lakh to eliminate him and his family members. It was further alleged that other associates, Sachin and Manjeet, were also part of this conspiracy.
The case was transferred to the Crime Branch on August 26, 2023. Breja, a businessman, claimed that he had invested Rs. 2 crore in a resort owned by the complainants in Uttarakhand. However, he alleged that he was deceived, receiving only a 21% share instead of the agreed 30%. The dispute led to financial loss and emotional distress for Breja and his family. He further claimed that the FIR was an attempt to pressure him regarding the commercial dispute.
The petitioner contended that the FIR was a means to exert pressure on him over a financial dispute. He denied any contact with co-accused Nikhil and the other alleged conspirators. It was argued that co-accused Nikhil was merely an informant who later sought pardon under Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) and was granted anticipatory bail. Breja had earlier been granted interim protection in his anticipatory bail application, but he surrendered before the trial court as per the directions of the Delhi High Court. He submitted that no injury was caused to the complainant and that the charges under Section 302 IPC were added maliciously to oppose his anticipatory bail. The co-accused Mohit Rana and Manjeet had already been granted regular bail. Breja’s legal team also stated his medical condition, stating that he had only one kidney and required continuous medical supervision.
The prosecution argued that the complainant was informed about the conspiracy by Nikhil, who later became an approver. According to call detail records (CDRs), Breja was in regular contact with co-accused Mohit and Manjeet, with calls and messages exchanged, especially on August 18, 2023, when the alleged attempt on the complainant’s life took place. CCTV footage placed the accused near the complainant’s residence on the said date. The prosecution contended that Breja had provided Rs. 2.5 lakh and firearms for the execution of the crime. The prosecution submitted that forensic examination of case-related materials was still pending.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna considered the submissions and observed that while the prosecution’s case was based primarily on the statements of co-accused Nikhil and the disclosure statements of the other accused, no injuries were inflicted upon the complainant. The court recorded:
“Though the FIR had been registered under Section 120B IPC, subsequently, Section 115 IPC has been added in the charge-sheet. The entire case of the Prosecution rests on the statement of Nikhil who had informed the Complainant about the conspiracy hatched by the Applicant and other co-accused.”
It was noted that co-accused Mohit Rana and Manjeet had been granted bail, and that Nikhil, who turned approver, had also secured anticipatory bail. The court stated:
“The Applicant is a businessman and there is no likelihood of his tampering with the evidence or fleeing away from the judicial process of law.”
Regarding the alleged threat to the complainant’s life, the court remarked that Breja had been under interim protection for nearly a year (October 19, 2023, to October 16, 2024), yet no untoward incident had taken place. The court observed:
“This argument on behalf of the Complainant, therefore, does not have any merit to deny the Bail.”
In granting bail, the court imposed the following conditions:
- The petitioner shall furnish a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount.
- The petitioner shall not misuse the liberty granted to him.
- The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.
- The petitioner shall provide his cell phone number to the Investigating Officer and keep it operational.
- The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on every date of hearing.
- The court directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Jail Superintendent and the Trial Court for compliance.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Ms. Rebecca M. John, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Anshul Mittal, Mr. Parvir Singh, and Ms. Khushi Aggarwal, Advocates
For the Respondent-State: Mr. Shoaib Haider, Additional Public Prosecutor
For the Complainant: Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Mr. Samar Kachwaha, Mr. Rahul Kriplani, Ms. Rea Bhalla, and Ms. Masooma Rizvi, Advocates
Case Title: Rajesh Breja v. The State
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:1489
Case Number: Bail Appln. 4849/2024
Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
[Read/Download order]
