Forensic negation of incriminating evidence and reliance on inadmissible disclosure statements warrant grant of regular bail.

The accused/applicant sought regular bail in connection with FIR No. 931/2023 (PS Sarai Rohilla) involving offences under Sections 307 (Attempt to murder), 195A (Threatening to give false evidence), 506 (Criminal intimidation), 120B (Criminal conspiracy), and 34 of the IPC, alongside Section 83 of the JJ Act.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, along with co-accused persons, conspired to threaten an eyewitness to a murder case by assaulting him at his shop.

The applicant was not present during the assault and was implicated solely based on the disclosure statements of co-accused persons.

He remained in custody from January 13, 2024.

The State opposed bail, alleging that the applicant’s seized mobile phone contained reconnaissance videos of the Tis Hazari Court Complex, suggesting a plan to assault the witness in court.

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail considering the evidentiary value of the disclosure statements and the forensic results regarding the seized mobile phone.

A disclosure statement is generally not admissible evidence against an accused.

The Court also applied principles governing the grant of bail where there is a lack of "cogent evidence" to justify the continued deprivation of an individual's liberty.

The Court noted that the primary evidence against the applicant was a disclosure statement, which carries no evidentiary weight in the current context.

Although the police claimed to have found reconnaissance videos on the applicant's mobile phone, an FSL report dated August 22, 2025, confirmed that no such videos or data were retrieved.

The Court expressed strong dissatisfaction with the conduct of the multiple Sub-Inspectors (SIs) present, noting "complete confusion" regarding who the actual Investigating Officer (IO) was and a failure to brief the prosecutor accurately.

The Court observed that despite the FSL report being available for months, the investigating agency had not challenged its findings.

Given that the learned APP admitted in fairness that no cogent evidence existed to keep the applicant in jail, the Court determined there was no justification for continued incarceration.

Furthermore, due to the misleading and confused conduct of the police officials, the Court directed that a copy of the order be sent to the DCP (Legal) of the Delhi Police for information and necessary action.