Forensic DNA evidence linking the accused to the deceased justified denying bail despite prolonged incarceration.

The petitions arose from an FIR alleging that Rahul was murdered at Meel Wala Park, Delhi, on 14 May 2025.

CCTV footage was said to show three men at the location, and the prosecution identified them as Prem @ Sagar, Akash and a child in conflict with law (CCL).

The post-mortem attributed death to head injuries.

A subsequent FSL report found the deceased’s DNA profile in blood recovered from Prem’s T-shirt and jeans, as well as from the CCL’s clothes.

Prem and the other adult accused were charged under Sections 103(1) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

Prem’s revision challenged the order framing charge; his bail application was his third before the High Court.

He had been in custody since 14 May 2025, and the trial was pending.

1. Whether the order framing charge against Prem disclosed a basis for discharge or warranted interference in revision

2. Whether Prem was entitled to regular bail, having regard to his custody, age, antecedents, the stage of trial and the forensic material against him

At the charge stage, the court may sift the material only to determine whether it raises grave suspicion against the accused; revisional jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly and is not an appeal for reappreciation of evidence absent glaring perversity.

The Court relied on Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4, State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, (2023) 17 SCC 688, and Vijay Partap Singh v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8640, for these principles.

Section 250 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), requires reasons to be recorded for discharge.

For bail, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the accusation, the evidence supporting it, and the other relevant circumstances; assessment must remain prima facie and must not become a mini-trial.

It relied on The State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan, (2026) 8 SCC 223, and the bail principles discussed in Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT of Delhi.

The Court also relied on Sarnam Verma @ Suraj v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Bail Appln. 2164/2025, and Dineet v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8603, in assessing whether custody and potential trial delay outweighed the seriousness of the charge and the incriminating material.

On revision, the Court held that the evidence—including Prem’s apprehension on the day of the incident and the FSL finding of the deceased’s DNA profile on his clothes—was sufficient to raise grave suspicion.

The reliability of the CCTV identification, the informer and the disclosure statements were matters for trial, and no glaring illegality or perversity justified revisional interference.

On bail, the Court treated the forensic report as a significant prima facie circumstance, considered the gravity of the murder charge and the prescribed punishment of death or life imprisonment, and concluded that Prem’s age, lack of antecedents and period in custody did not outweigh those considerations.

It also dismissed the regular bail application, but permitted Prem to renew his bail plea after the forensic witnesses had been examined or if the trial did not progress materially within six months from the decision.

The Court clarified that its observations were prima facie and would not prejudice the trial.