The court emphasized the need for supporting evidence from witnesses and reasonable doubt about the prosecution's claims in granting bail under Section 439(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

ORDER

1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 439(1) Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant seeking regular bail in FIR No.422/2018 registered under Section 302 IPC at Police Station Govind Puri, Delhi.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in judicial custody since 15.12.2018 and the charge sheet having been filed, he is no longer required for any investigation. He further submits that in support of its case,the prosecution has cited four witnesses, namely Dilshad, Manish @ Bunty, Mahavir and Aslam. However, during their examination in trial, all four of them have not supported the prosecution case.It is also submitted that besides the testimony of the aforesaid four witnesses, there is no other evidence against the present applicant.

3. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the bail application. She submits that the alleged incident had occurred on 15.12.2018 when the present applicant stabbed the deceased/Shivam with a knife. She further submits that the incident in question was witnessed by the aforesaid four witnesses and though they have mentioned about the presence of the present applicant as well as of the deceased in DDA Park, B-Block, Transit Camp, Govind Puriat the relevant time, they have not stated anything with respect to the factum of stabbing of the deceased by the applicant.It is contended that after the arrest of the applicant, his disclosure statement was recorded and thereafter, the weapon of offence i.e. knife was recovered from the house of the applicant. Learned APP further submits that the recovered knife was sent to the FSL for examination, wherein the blood found on the knife was found to match with that of the deceased. Lastly, it is submitted that the concerned doctor, after being shown the recovered weapon of offence, has also opined that the injuries suffered by the deceased could be on account of the same.

4. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that though the applicant is shown to have been arrested on 15.12.2018in the evening, the weapon of offence, i.e. knife,is shown to have been recovered two days thereafter on 17.12.2018.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State as well as perused the material placed on record.

6. As per the charge sheet, the alleged incident is stated to have occurred at the DDA Park, B-Block, Transit Camp, Govind Puri, New Delhi in the evening, when the deceased, alongwith his friends namely Dilshad, Manish @ Bunty, Mahavir and Aslam, was having beer and the present applicant came and joined them. It is stated that the applicant stabbed the deceased/Shivamon chest and other places, who thereafter, on account of the injuries received, succumbed to his death.However, in the trial, even though the aforesaid four witnesses deposed that all of them were consuming beer at the park with the deceased, none of them supported the prosecution case insofar as the factum of stabbing of the deceased by the applicant is concerned. Further, as per the disclosure statement of the applicant, he had gone to Astha Kunj Park, Nehru Place after the incident and thrown the knife which is alleged to be the weapon of offence. As per the prosecution case however, the said knife has been recovered from the house of the applicant.

7. On a specific query whether there is any subsequent disclosure statement of the applicant, learned APP for the State, on instructions from the Investigation Officer, who has also joined the V.C. proceedings, has denied the same.

8. Keeping in view of the aforesaid, this Court deems it apposite to direct that the applicant be released on regular bail subject to his furnishi