Full Judgment Text
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of decision: 25 August, 2025
+ BAIL APPLN. 757/2025
RAJ KUMAR
S/o Nand Lal
R/o Jhuggi No.A-192,
Village Bhadola, New Delhi.
.....Petitioner
Through: Counsel for Petitioner (appearance
not given).
versus
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Through its SHO
P.S. Mahendra Park.
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State with
Insp. Harkesh Meena
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. An Application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed on behalf of
the Applicant Raj Kumar for grant of Regular Bail in case FIR
No.1006/2023 under Section 302/34 IPC registered at Police Station
Mahendra Park.
2. It is submitted that the Applicant is in Judicial Custody since
26.10.2023 and the case is pending before the learned Sessions Judge for
recording of Prosecution Evidence.
3. It is the submitted that the investigation qua the Applicant is
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:26.08.2025
18:44:46
BAIL APPLN. 757/2025 Page 1 of 4
complete; Chargesshet has already been filed and there is no possibility of
tampering with evidence by the Applicant and that no purpose would be
served by keeping him in Judicial Custody. He had filed an Application for
Bail, which was been dismissed by learned ASJ, Delhi vide Order dated
21.12.2024 stating that FSL Report of CCTV footage of the incident has not
been received till date.
4. The brief facts of the case are that on 26.10.2023, an information
received vide DD No.14A, P.S Mahendra Park, regarding injured Rajesh
being admitted in BJRM Hospital by his friend Varun Yadav. He died
during his treatment and his MLC was collected. ASI Ijaj Ali tried to trace
the eye witnesses, but none could be found on the spot. The FIR, therefore,
registered on the DD entry itself.
5. During further investigations, no eye witness could be traced, but
statements of witnesses Varun Radav, Mitthan and Rajiv Yadav were
fabricated to falsely implicate the Applicant.
6. The examination-in-chief of Prosecution witnesses Varun Yadan and
Mitthan have been recorded in part who have declined that they were the
eye witnesses of the alleged incident.
7. There are four other accused persons namely Anshu, Bobby @ Babbi,
Raj Kumar and Shahid. The alleged recovery of the case property from co-
accused Anshu, but nothing was recovered from the Applicant.
8. In the case of Narender Singh and Anr. vs. State of M.P (2004) 10
SCC 699 and S. Ganesan vs. Rama Raghuraman (2011) 2 SCC 83 the
Supreme Court held that every accused is presumed to be innocent, unless
his guilt if proven.
9. The Applicant has clean antecedents and had never been involved in
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:26.08.2025
18:44:46
BAIL APPLN. 757/2025 Page 2 of 4
any type of criminal activity. The case against him had been fabricated
without any substance or evidence. He has thus, sought regular Bail in the
present case.
10. The Status Report has been filed on behalf of the State, wherein the
registration of the FIR and the investigations carried out therein resulting in
filing of Chargesheet, has been narrated. The Doctor in the Post Mortem has
opined the cause of death “as haemorrhage and shock consequent to Injury
No.3 which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature”. The
injuries were stated to be ante mortem and fresh. All injuries were caused
by sharp pointed weapon.
11. During the investigations, statements of four eye witnesses were
recorded who deposed about the manner of crime. The CCTV camera
installed at Shop No.A-243 covered the incident partially as one boy was
seen stabbing the deceased while other three were seen covering him. On
the identification of eye witnesses, CCLd namely “A”, “B” and “S” were
apprehended and Applicant Raj Kumar was also arrested.
12. There are 25 Prosecution Witnesses, out of which two witnesses have
been examined. The evidence of the eye witnesses, is yet to be recorded.
The Bail Application is opposed on the grounds that the allegations against
the Applicant are grave and serious in nature; that he is the main accused
and if he is released on Bail, he may jump it. Moreover, he may induce,
threaten or promise the witnesses acquainted with the facts of the case so as
to dissuade them from disclosing the true facts in the Court.
Submissions heard and record perused .
13. Essentially, the evidence against the Applicant is of the eye witnesses,
the CCTV Footage, CDR record showing the connectivity and the recoveries
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:26.08.2025
18:44:46
BAIL APPLN. 757/2025 Page 3 of 4
that have been effected. The testimony of the brother of the accused has
been recorded, who has supported the case of the Prosecution. The case of
the Prosecution rests not only on the testimony of the eye witnesses, but also
supporting corroborative evidence as mentioned above. The accused is in
Judicial Custody since 26.10.2023. The trial is proceedings at the regular
pace.
14. Considering the gravity of the offence, no case is made out for grant
of Bail. The Application is, therefore, dismissed and stands disposed of
accordingly.
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
AUGUST 25, 2025
va
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:26.08.2025
18:44:46
BAIL APPLN. 757/2025 Page 4 of 4