Delhi HC Flags Police Inaction on Threat Calls to Key Witness in Murder-Conspiracy Bail Plea
Justice Girish Kathpalia directed the DCP to probe threat calls received by a cab driver witness in a murder and conspiracy case, criticising the IO's failure to act on the allegation since April 2024.
While hearing a regular bail application in a murder and criminal conspiracy case, the High Court of Delhi on 9 September 2026 turned its attention to a troubling feature in the trial record: the cab driver who transported the victim's body had, in his examination-in-chief, stated that he was receiving regular threat calls from a specific mobile number, yet the police had taken no action. Justice Girish Kathpalia, sitting singly, directed the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police to enquire into that allegation, and to register and investigate a case if the facts warranted. The bail plea itself was adjourned to 19 November 2026, with a status report due at least one week before that date.
The Alleged Murder and the Role of the Cab Driver
The prosecution's case in FIR No. 762/2020, registered at PS Adarsh Nagar, is that Ms. Faizal — daughter of co-accused Ms. Shaheen Naaz — killed the deceased, who had an extramarital affair with her. The alleged killing was carried out with the help of a co-accused named Zuber.
After the murder, Ms. Shaheen Naaz and Ms. Faizal packed the dead body in a box. They then hired a cab to deliver the box to Nizamuddin Railway Station. Zuber arranged for the body to be transported by train to Gujarat, where it was eventually recovered. The offences charged include Section 302 (murder), Section 120B (criminal conspiracy), Section 420 (cheating), Section 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), Section 471 (using as genuine a forged document) and Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code.
The cab driver is therefore a significant prosecution witness: he carried the box containing the body and, according to his own testimony, has been paying a price for that role ever since.
Previous Bail Application and the Cab Driver's Testimony
The current bail application is not the first. Counsel for the accused/applicant informed the court that the previous bail application had been allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to file afresh, specifically after the testimony of the cab driver was recorded by the trial court. Once that testimony was recorded, the present application was filed.
In his part chief-examination, the cab driver stated that he had been receiving regular threat calls from mobile phone number 9971409160. This allegation appeared at page 129 of the pdf of his testimony placed before the High Court.
Police Unable to Explain; Court Finds Attitude Unacceptable
During the hearing, Justice Kathpalia examined the cab driver's testimony on this point and asked the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State to explain whether the phone number had been tracked. The APP asked Inspector Rajender, who expressed inability to explain. SHO/Inspector Rajesh Kumar was then asked; he stated that because the cab driver had not lodged a formal police complaint, no action was taken.
The court was direct in its response. It described the explanation as “not acceptable, to say the least.” The cab driver's testimony about the threat calls was recorded on 16 April 2024. The court observed that a diligently involved Investigating Officer should, on his own initiative, have inquired into the allegation and taken action, without waiting for a formal complaint. The bench linked the inaction to a wider pattern: “It is such lackadaisical attitude of the police machinery that public witnesses so frequently turn hostile to prosecution.”
The reasoning is pointed. The allegation of threat calls appeared on the face of the trial record in April 2024. The IO had access to that record. Waiting for the witness to separately walk into a police station and file a complaint — after already having given testimony before a sessions court — is, in the court's view, a failure of basic investigative duty. The court connected that failure directly to the systemic problem of prosecution witnesses turning hostile, a concern that recurs across criminal trials.
Directions to the DCP and Status Report
The court directed that a copy of the order be sent to the concerned DCP with instructions to enquire into the cab driver's allegation. If, after enquiry, the DCP considers it appropriate, a case is to be registered and investigated.
The court also directed that a status report covering this aspect — along with other relevant matters — be filed at least one week before the next date. Significantly, the status report must be personally signed by the concerned DCP, not merely by the Investigating Officer or a subordinate. This personal-signature requirement signals that the court expects accountability at a senior level.
Outcome
The bail application, BAIL APPLN. 3774/2026, was not decided on 9 September 2026. It was relisted for 19 November 2026 in the Advance List. The exemption application CRL.M.A. 27963/2026 was allowed subject to just exception. The State, represented by APP Mr. Amit Ahlawat with Inspector Rajender and Inspector/SHO Rajesh Kumar, strongly opposed the bail. No bail was granted at this stage.