$~J-2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment reserved on: 21.11.2025

Judgment pronounced on: 26.11.2025

+ BAIL APPLN. 3390/2025

PRAVEEN SINGH .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Amitej Kumar Nagar, Adv.

versus

STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for State with Insp. Naren Kumar PCR Insp. Arvind Kumar PS Mandir Marg.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN

JUDGMENT

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J

CRL.M.A. 26492/2025 (exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

BAIL APPLN. 3390/2025

3. The present petition has been filed seeking regular bail in connection with FIR No. 54/2020 under Section 302 IPC registered at PS Mandir Marg.

4. A copy of the status report has been handed over by the learned APP across the bar, the same is taken on record.

5. The case of the prosecution as borne out from the status report is that on 10.06.2020 at about 08.18 PM, DD No. 36A was received at PS Mandir Marg regarding a quarrel at Bhagat Singh Complex. The call was assigned to SI Sudhir, who reached the spot and found a pool of fresh blood near the exit gate of Metropolitan Hotel. It was learnt that two boys had scuffled with each other and had already been shifted to the hospital by PCR van.

6. The investigation revealed that petitioner/accused, as well as, the deceased had a quarrel, during which they sustained injuries. The victim namely, Ankit was found grievously injured, and the case was initially registered under Section 307 IPC, later converted to Section 302 IPC after the death of Ankit during treatment.

7. Further investigation revealed that the quarrel began inside Bhagat Singh Complex. After being injured, victim Ankit tried to escape and entered the Metropolitan Hotel through its open exit gate. The accused Praveen Singh chased him, and when the victim fell due to his injuries, the accused brutally assaulted him multiple times with a broken glass bottle until he became unconscious.

8. Mr. Amitej Kumar Nagar, learned counsel appearing on behalf petitioner submits that the following incriminating circumstances have been pressed by the prosecution against the present petitioner- (i) the account of two eye witnesses; (ii) the dying declaration given by the deceased to his mother, as well as, cousin; (iii) the weapon of offence and; (iv) the CCTV footage.

9. Mr. Nagar submits that insofar as two eye witnesses namely, Rishi Pal/PW-5 and Shivam Verma/PW-9 are concerned, they have not fully supported the case of the prosecution. There are material contradictions in their statements.

10. Referring to the testimony of Sh. Shivam Verma/PW-9, he contends that as per the said witness, he had not witnessed the petitioner inflicting any injury on the person of accused with the broken bottle. The said witness only stated that the petitioner/accused had slapped deceased Ankit once/twice. Further, as per the said eye witness, both the petitioner and the accused had sustained injuries.

11. He further contends that the learned APP conducted the cross-examination of PW-9 and the said witness has rather discredited the prosecution version of dying declaration having been made by deceased Ankit to her mother.

12. Insofar as another eye witness namely, Rishi Pal / PW-5 is concerned, he submits that even the said witness has also not stated that he had seen the present petitioner/accused inflicting injuries on the person of deceased Ankit.

13. He further contends that the murder weapon had not been shown to the eye witnesses for identification, during their testimonies .

14. As regards CCTV footage, the submission of Mr. Nagar is that the said CCTV footage was not shown to the witnesses for identification of the accused and the deceased. The CCTV footage is otherwise blurred.

15. Mr. Nagar further contends that it has also been proved on record that the accused had also suffered stab injuries with sharp weapon. This strengthens the contention that it was the de