Anticipatory bail granted where CCTV footage contradicts prosecution claims and alibi evidence remains unverified by investigating officer.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail regarding FIR No. 562/2025 (PS Narela) registered under Sections 109(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The prosecution alleged that on 09.08.2025, the applicant and three minors stabbed the victim, followed by a second assault with a danda (stick) on 26.08.2025.

Initially, the Investigating Officer (IO) stated the CCTV footage of the stabbing did not show the applicant, leading to interim protection.

Later, the IO retracted this, claiming the footage did depict the applicant.

The applicant further produced railway tickets showing he was traveling to Gaya Junction during the second alleged incident on 25.08.2025.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail based on contradictions in the evidentiary value of CCTV footage and the lack of investigation into his plea of alibi.

The court considered the discretionary powers for granting anticipatory bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

The deprivation of personal liberty is not warranted when the prosecution's primary evidence (CCTV footage) does not support its accusations and when the Investigating Officer fails to verify documentary evidence regarding the accused’s absence from the jurisdiction (plea of alibi) during subsequent alleged offenses.

The Court observed that while the prosecution heavily relied on CCTV footage, a viewing in open court revealed that the applicant was merely present in the lane and did not participate in the stabbing.

Regarding the second incident on 25.08.2025, the Court noted that the MLC of the victim mentioned only head wounds and was silent on previous stab injuries.

The applicant produced railway tickets indicating he was traveling outside Delhi between 18.08.2025 and 24.12.2025; however, the IO had failed to investigate this alibi despite the records being filed with the application.

The Court found the prosecution's case weakened by the IO's inconsistent statements and the lack of evidence connecting the applicant to the actual violence.

The Court held that there was no reason to deprive the applicant of his liberty given the evidentiary discrepancies.

The Court directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant be released on a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of like amount, subject to joining the investigation as required.