The court denied bail based on the gravity of the charges and substantial corroborating evidence of the applicant's active involvement in the murder.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, 34 - Bail application - The applicant seeks regular bail in connection with serious charges of murder. The applicant was identified by witnesses and implicated by co-accused. The Court considered the nature and gravity of the offense, establishing that the applicant actively participated in the beating leading to the deceased's death. Evidence of the applicant's involvement is corroborated by CCTV footage and witness statements. (Paras 3-5, 8-21)

(B) Bail - Factors considered - The seriousness of the charges, potential for witness tampering, and the applicant's prior conduct post-offense were pivotal in the denial of bail. The Court emphasized the necessity for prima facie evidence supporting allegations against the accused. (Paras 17-20)

Facts of the case:
The case revolves around an alleged murder resulting from a confrontation over a money dispute, with the applicant accused of being involved in the physical assault on the deceased. (Paras 2, 4, 10)

Findings of Court:
Given the nature of the charged offenses and the evidence indicating the applicant's active role, the application for bail was dismissed.

Issues: The critical issues revolved around the applicant's involvement in the alleged murder and the risk of tampering with evidence if granted bail.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the serious nature of the offenses and the clear evidence implicating the applicant warranted the dismissal of the bail application, indicating that the gravity of the allegations necessitates caution in granting bail.

Result: Bail application dismissed.

Table of Content
1. details of the incident leading to the fir. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. arguments from the applicant's counsel. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. prosecution's opposition to bail. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
4. evidence against the applicant's involvement. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
5. legal standards for bail consideration. (Para 17 , 18 , 19)
6. final ruling on the bail application. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)

JUDGMENT

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. The instant application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter "Cr.P.C.") on behalf of the applicant seeking regular bail in FIR No. 07/2021 under Section 302/147/148/149/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter "IPC") registered at PS Khyala, New Delhi.

2. Brief facts of the matter are that the complainant, Jitender Kumar Mehta, is the brother of the deceased, Satender @ Bhola, and he lodged the instant FIR against the instant applicant and his associates who have been accused of killing the deceased.

3. On the day of the incident the complainant was returning from his Cafi when he received a phone call, at about 1:30 am, from one Nitin @ Lussy, a friend of the deceased, who informed him that the deceased had a money issue with one Vicky who was making excuses to pay back money to the deceased. Both the deceased and Nitin went to the house of the accused Vicky to take back the said money and found Vicky consuming alcohol outside his house alongwith two other people. When the deceased asked for his money, accused Vicky started abusing him and conversation between them became heated.

4. Thereafter, accused Vicky called upon three-four other boys and all of them together starting assaulting the deceased and his friends. Accused Vicky picked up a baseball bat and stated hitting the deceased on his head and kept hitting him repeatedly till he became unconscious. When the complainant reached the spot of the incident, he found the deceased lying of the road with his head torn and blood scattered in the street. The complainant took the deceased to the hospital where he was declared `brought dead'. Subsequently, FIR No. 07/2021 was lodged by the complainant. The instant applicant was arrest at the instance of one Pankaj Mehta on 2nd September, 2021.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that the instant applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case only on the statements of the co-accused. There is no evidence against the applicant connecting him, directly or indirectly, to the assault and the consequent murder of the deceased.

6. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the instant FIR was lodged on the basis of hearsay statement and the same does not name him. Further, the prosecution witnesses Nitin and Pradeep @ Mannu @ Manish, in their statement, did not name the applicant and would not have been able to identify him had they had been confronted. The statements of the prosecution witnesses do not reveal any role or over act of the applicant in the entire incident. It is submitted that even the CCTV footage of the incident does not show that the applicant had assaulted the deceased. There are serious and material contradictions between the oral evidence and the footage of CCTV.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is a student and has no criminal history and he is not required for the investigation as the challan against him has already been filed. The learned counsel for the applicant, on instructions, undertakes that the applicant shall abide by all conditions that may be imposed upon him.

8. Per Contra, Ms. Kusum Dhalla, learned APP for the State vehemently opposed this instant application and submitted that the applicant was present on the spot at the time of the incident and was actively involved in the murder of the deceased. He was duly identified by the eye-witness Nitin.

9. It is submitted that the applicant brought accused Arun @ Rikki and