$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 17.02.2026 + BAIL APPLN. 2065/2025 SAURABH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Anil Basoya, Mr. Kunal Basoya and Mr. Rohit Lohia, Advocates.

versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Amit Ahalwat, APP for State with Inspector Sanjeev Mishra and Inspector Satbir Singh, PS Jaitpur.

Mr. Sidharth Yadav, Advocate for deceased/Complainant (through videoconferencing).

CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

1. The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 514/2023 of PS Jaitpur for offence under Section 302/34 IPC.

2. Broadly speaking, the prosecution case is as follows. In his FIR statement, Arjun, friend of the deceased Ravi stated that on 11.12.2023, three-four boys started beating up Ravi, so Ravi tried to flee, but those boys stopped him and assaulted him with fists and kicks. In the FIR, Arjun stated that he knew two of the assailants as Monu and Prince, and that he could D Si i g gi n ta a l t l u y r S e i g N n o ed t Verified G KA IR T I H SH P ALIA DD2cops51D e 4. 5e uo iN a 5 r g 5 27 =s t i .:4 a i 5 e t 6 0 t H c al . : 6 a f9 2 N = l a I 2 9 l C 9 G 0I , u 0 y a N 6 o = H c m 2 f b s n , d 83 6 i C o 4b = e g 49 . = 0 0 O=e 06 G n 2 f H r 12 1U e 8I = .R dc 1 1 Id 0 R G d I 6 0 d 7 Sc T b 3 H f 0 b 8 H b 1 y O e0 8 d 8 C 4 8 K 3 G F 9 2 : 8 O 6 0A , b I e D3 7 R s 8 U T 2 e 5 tE 9 I :H R = 7 4 S e dL 6 H a 6 T 9P D 4H 4 7 0 A 3 O - e5 I K 7 4 0 , L 5 lC 1 AF h b 0 8I f e I A T 9 i 2 ' 2 D D 0 ,c H 7 c f 4 E 0 6 - 4 6 P 5 L ' 5 7 8 2 AH c f 0 7 6 0 LI 4 9 c , 7 I A a7 6 e b c6 4 5 5 c3 a fd af 8 8 e, 1 , 0 identify the assailants if brought before him. The injured Ravi succumbed to his injuries on 15.12.2023 in the hospital. The identity of the assailants was tried to be established by police on the basis of their identification from CCTV footage.

3. On behalf of accused/applicant Saurabh, it is contended that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is submitted by learned counsel for accused/applicant that there is no legally admissible evidence on the basis whereof the accused/applicant is being prosecuted. It is contended by learned counsel that in the CCTV footage, face of the assailant is not at all visible. Further, it is contended that although in the FIR, the allegation was that the deceased was assaulted by 3 – 4 boys with fists and kicks, but the CCTV footage depicts only one boy assaulting a person with danda. It is contended that the accused/applicant is in custody since 13.12.2023 and he is a young man of 25 years of age, with no antecedents. Further, it is pointed out by learned counsel for accused/applicant that the IO examined only two persons as eye witnesses, but both of them turned hostile to prosecution.

4. Learned APP for State contends that the accused/applicant got recovered his clothes on which blood of the deceased was detected as per FSL report. Danda used in the assault also was recovered at the instance of the accused/applicant, though it does not bear any blood stains.

5. Learned counsel for complainant de facto also has been heard and he submits that according to settled legal position, the CCTV footage is the best D Si i g gi n ta a l t l u y r S e i g N n o ed t Verified G KA IR T I H SH P ALIA DD2aa7sd6D e fc . 0 51 iN a 5e r g c4 f5 t i .c : a 4 a i e 7 58 t 4 c , l . : a 6 70 2 N = 5o 2 l 3 01 05 I u u 0 yN 8 9e =6= m 2 , 92 s, 98 6 Hp io 66 b a g 4 . oI = 0 bf f e 0 n G a 3 s 2 4 H r 1 e , Ht 9 = . 0 d a c1 Id 6 G dfn lC d 7 8 C 2 b 3 H = O 8 0 c 1 o y e G 86 c 8 U C d 8 G 9 b f I: O eR 6 R0 bb I d =7 R T 8I U 42 S2 9 I 1 : 8O R7 3 S He61 3 H aT 9 e F 40 5 K 7 e O - 50D K d A 7 0 610 AF 4E b T8 0e3 3L T H' 2D 4 0 c,H5 H f 0P 4s E 0 6fI 2 P t A 5 L ' 9, 5 =C c AH c 7 L f D 4 I 0 L I 6D I A8 , 7e I 2 A e 7 bl-6 h 4 95 c i, evidence, as it depicts the actual incident happening before the court, therefore, the same has to be relied upon. Learned counsel for complainant de facto also co