$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 12.11.2025

Date of Decision: 28.11.2025

+ BAIL APPLN. 1851/2025

DINEET .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Tushar Mahajan, Mr. Bhaavan Mahajan and Mr. Tanmay Surana, Advs.

versus

STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Satish Kumar, APP for State with Ms. Upasna Bakshi, Adv. with Sub. Insp. Pankaj Kumar, PS Jyoti Nagar with Smt. Sumitra (mother of deceased)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL

J U D G M E N T

%

1. The present second bail application has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on behalf of the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in connection with FIR no. 248/20181 registered at Police Station Jyoti Nagar, Delhi under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. The brief facts as contained within the subject FIR are that on 18.07.2018 at 5.50 pm, GTB hospital had informed the police that one Gaurav aged 17 years and a resident of Babar Pur, Delhi, was found in an unconscious state outside West Jyoti Nagar Boys Senior School and was admitted to GTB Hospital where he was declared as having been brought dead.

3. It is further recorded that the complainant as per the details in the FIR– SI Javinder Singh, met Govinda, the brother of the deceased, who mentioned that around one week ago the deceased had fought with the petitioner and the petitioner’s friends.

4. The petitioner was arrested on 23.07.2018. Charges were framed on 09.09.2019 and the trial is reported to be at the stage of prosecution evidence with 8 out of 37 witnesses having been examined so far.

5. The petitioner moved an application for regular bail which came to be dismissed by the learned ASJ Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, vide order dt. 01.05.2024, noting the heinous nature of the allegations levelled and that only 7 of 29 witnesses had been examined at the time, and that bail applications of co-accused persons were dismissed on merits on 26.04.2024.

6. The petitioner’s first petition for bail before this Court was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dt. 02.09.2024, after which a bail application filed by the petitioner before the learned ASJ, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, was dismissed vide order dated 05.05.2025 on the grounds of gravity of offence, coupled with the significant period from 10.08.2020 to 05.04.2023 being spent by the petitioner on bail due to the ongoing COVID-19 exigency.

7. Mr. Tushar Mahajan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the case of the prosecution does not prima facie establish the petitioner’s involvement in the commission of the crime which led to the registration of the subject FIR, and that PW2/ Raj (cousin brother of the deceased) is a planted witness who is the only eyewitness to the crime and has also turned hostile.

8. He begins by pointing out contradictions of PW2/Raj, in his statements under 161 CrPC and examination in chief/cross examination. He submits that in PW2’s statement under 161 CrPC, he stated that he had informed the assailants that the deceased had a history of fits/seizures to which the assailants responded with their intention to kill the deceased. Further, his statement records that the petitioner was clearly visible in the CCTV footage obtained by the police.

9. Per contra, as submitted by Mr. Mahajan, PW2 states in cross examination that PW2 did not inform the assailants of the deceased’s medical history of fits and specifically denied that the petitioner was visible in the CCTV footage. Mr. Mahajan submits that beyond this, PW2 provides additional information when compared to what was mentioned in his statement under Section 161 of the CrPC to the extent of saying that the deceased was lying in a park with foam around his mouth, and that he was not able to identify himself in the CCTV footage and his identification of the accused was not confirmatory but doubtable.

10. He also argues tha