Delhi HC Denies Bail To Man Accused Of CCTV-Captured Iron-Rod Assault, Despite Nearly 22 Months In Custody

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case arising from an alleged group assault on the complainant on 18 November 2024.

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and others arrived on a scooty, assaulted the complainant with iron rods, and that a co-accused fired a gunshot; the complainant sustained injuries later classified as grievous.

The prosecution relied, among other material, on CCTV footage, the complainant’s identification of the petitioner at a test identification parade, witness statements, and the recovery of iron rods.

The petitioner had been in custody since 23 November 2024; the chargesheet was filed in February 2025, and the case was at the stage of arguments on charge.

The Sessions Court had previously dismissed his bail application, and the nominal roll recorded custody of one year, ten months and eight days as of 30 September 2026.

Section 483 of the BNSS empowers the Court to grant regular bail.

Under the principles stated in Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar alias Polia, the discretion to grant bail must be exercised judicially, considering factors including the nature and severity of the offence, the evidence supporting the accusation, the accused’s prima facie involvement, and the risk of witness tampering or threats; no single formula governs the decision.

The Court also relied on State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan, which reiterates that neither the filing of a chargesheet nor the prospect of a prolonged trial, standing alone, creates an entitlement to bail; those considerations must be weighed against the gravity of the offence, the incriminating material, and the risk of witness interference.

The Court considered the allegations grave and found that the CCTV footage, the complainant’s identification of the petitioner, the recovery of iron rods, and the medical opinion of grievous injury disclosed a prima facie case.

It rejected the submission that the electronic and documentary nature of the evidence made tampering impossible as a sufficient basis for bail, and held that the petitioner’s substantial custody and the possibility of a prolonged trial could not, by themselves, outweigh the seriousness of the allegations and the material collected.

The complainant’s consistent account and the corroborative witness statements and CCTV footage also weighed against release at that stage.

The application was disposed of, with the Court clarifying that its observations were confined to the bail application and would not affect the merits of the case.