$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on : 23rdSeptember, 2025

Pronounced on:15th November, 2025

Uploaded on: 15th November, 2025

+ BAIL APPLN.1066/2025

CHATTAN DABAS THROUGH PAIROKAR

.....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Mohit Mathur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Prem Chhetr, Mr. Vignesh, Ms. Divya, Ms. Tarannum, Mr. Nayan Kumar Sharma & Mr. Sanit Singh, Advocates

V

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Tarang Srivastav, APP.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

JUDGMENT

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

1. The present application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner namely Mr. Chattan Dabas, seeking grant of regular bail in FIR No. 264/2023, registered at P.S. Baba Haridas Nagar under Section 302 IPC and Sections 25/27 Arms Act, 1959.

Factual Background

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 12.06.2023, at about 7:35 PM, a PCR call was received at P.S. Baba Haridas Nagar regarding an accident near RP Building Material Supplier, Khaira Road. On reaching the spot, the police found a white Maruti Celerio car bearing registration no. DL 1RTC 3380 with its driver’s side window shattered, bloodstains on the front seat, and an empty bullet shell on the rear seat. Shortly thereafter, information was received from RTRM Hospital that Mr. Dhirender [“deceased”], resident of Village Galibpur, had been brought with gunshot injury and declared dead. Post-mortem confirmed firearm wounds.

2.1 The crime team inspected the spot, lifted exhibits, and seized the deceased’s car- white Maruti Celerio. The body of the deceased was identified by his cousin Namit. During investigation, on the basis of secret information, the petitioner Chattan Dabas was arrested on 21.06.2023.

2.2 As per the prosecution case, the petitioner fired upon the deceased and concealed the weapon, his mobile phone, and vehicle’s number plate. CCTV footage of the place of incident and call detail records were collected. Pyjama, allegedly worn by the petitioner, was seized.

2.3 On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed under Sections 302/201 IPC and 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959. FSL result was obtained and filed with supplementary charge-sheet ruling out the CCTV manipulation. The face recognition report is still awaited. The trial has since commenced. The petitioner has been in custody for last more than two years.

2.4 The petitioner preferred bail application which came to be dismissed by Ld. Trial court vide order dated 28.01.2025. Feeling aggrieved, the present application has been filed before this Court.

Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner

3. Mr. Mohit Mathur, learned Senior Counsel who appeared for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and that the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence and there is no direct evidence. Two prosecution witnesses namely Deepak (PW-2) and Ravi Tehlan (PW-3), who were projected as key witnesses, have not supported the prosecution case and were declared hostile. Both of them denied recognizing the petitioner in the CCTV footage and did not confirm their presence at the scene of crime.

4. It is further contended that the FSL report on facial recognition of the CCTV footage remains inconclusive due to the poor pixel quality and thus fails to assist the prosecution case. Moreover, PW-2 denied having furnished any certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, and the footage was already in circulation on social media prior to its seizure, raising doubts on its authenticity.

5. Ld. Senior Counsel submitted that the CDRs relied upon only indicate presence of the mobile phone in the area and not necessarily at the crime scene. PW-12 clarified that the number was registered in the name of another individual. It is stated that as per the Fingerprint report, the chance prints lifted from the deceased’s vehicle did not match the petitioner’s fingerpr