$~4

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of Decision: 12.01.2026

+ BAIL APPLN. 4135/2025 & CRL.M.A. 32170/2025

MOHSIN @ ABRAR .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Jitendra Sethi, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Hemant Gulati, Mr. Bharat and

Mr. Shobit Dimri, Advocates

versus

STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State

with Inspector Sachin Kumar.

CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

1. The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 79/2019 of PS Krishna Nagar for offence under Section 302/120B/34 IPC and Section

25/27 Arms Act.

2. Broadly speaking, according to prosecution case, the FIR registered on account of gunshots was a blind FIR as no eyewitness was present at the spot and the injured succumbed to his injuries on being taken to the hospital. Subsequently, during investigation, the IO examined two persons purported to be eyewitnesses, who named the accused/applicant as one of the assailants. According to those two eyewitnesses, the accused/applicant fired

BAIL APPLICATION 4135/2025 Page 1 of 4 pages

Digitaly signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA

GIRISH D 2. N 5. : 4 c .2 = 0 IN = , 8 o 4 = 0 H 1d IG d H 8 8 C 9 O b U 2 R 7a T 7 O 7 F b 2 D f E 6 L 5 H f I, e4af

ec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacc

Signature Not Verified KATHPALIA a 7 se , 0 r o 4 i u a 7 l = 6 N 3 H u 8 I m G , p H b o e C s r t O = a d U lC 3 R o e T d 8 O e 6 = 7 F 9 1 D 6 1 E 4 0 L 5 0 H 1 0 I e 3 ,C c , 4 I s D t 5 = c - D 07 e b lh 5 i, d

15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965f

f801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA

Digitally Signed Date: 2026.01.12 17:59:42 -08'00'

at the deceased with a country-made pistol. Further, according to prosecution, the entire incident was captured on CCTV and the eyewitnesses identified the accused/applicant present in the CCTV footage.

3. Against the above backdrop, learned senior counsel for accused/applicant contends that the prosecution evidence is not at all reliable in the present case. It is also contended that two of the accused persons, against whom prosecution alleged conspiracy have already been granted bail by this court. One of the four alleged assailants was a Child in Conflict with Law, according to learned senior counsel, while the remaining three are in custody. It is submitted by learned senior counsel that both alleged eyewitnesses have already been examined in trial but even at this stage, 32 more witnesses remain to be examined and the accused/applicant is in custody since 26.04.2019. Culmination of trial not being expected in the immediate future, learned senior counsel submits that this is a fit case to release the accused/applicant on bail.

4. The bail application is opposed by prosecution on the ground of gravity of the offence alleged against the accused/applicant. Learned prosecutor also submits that since the accused/applicant refused to participate in the Test Identification Parade, his dock identification becomes significant. Learned prosecutor assisted by IO/Inspector Sachin Kumar has produced before me the CCTV footage contending that the offence is clearly captured in the same.

BAIL APPLICATION 4135/2025 Page 2 of 4 pages Digitaly signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA GIRISH D 2. N 5. : 4 c .2 = 0 IN = , 8 o 4 = 0 H 1d IG d H 8 8 C 9 O b U 2 R 7a T 7 O 7 F b 2 D f E 6 L 5 H f I, e4 afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626c d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c4879 Digitally Signed 6 D 5 a f te 8 : 0 2 1 0 e 2 2 6 6 .0 fa 1 , . c 1 n 2 = 1 G 7 I : R 59 IS :3 H 2 K - A 0 T 8 H '0 P 0 A ' LIA

5. But after playing of the CCTV footage in court, learned prosecutor, in all fairness does not dispute that the CCTV shown today in court does not depict the actual incident of firing. The CCTV footage also does not depict clearly faces of the alleged assailants. Where faces of the alleged assailants are not clearly depicted, identity of any of the alleged assailants on the basis of that footage would be a suspect, to say the least at this stage.

6. In other words, the only evidence collected by the IO to connect the accused/appl