BAIL APPLN./3544/2025 of DEEN DAYAL @KHUSHBOO @DD Vs THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+BAIL APPLN. 3544/2025, CRL.M.A. 27826/2025DEEN DAYAL @KHUSHBOO @DDDEEN DAYAL @KHUSHBOO @DD

.....Petitioner

Through:Ms. Chinki Guliya, Advocate.

versus

THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI.....RespondentThrough:Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State.

.....Respondent

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

17.09.2025

1.The present application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya NagarikSuraksha Sanhita, 2023[1](corresponding to Section 439 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973[2]) seeks regular bail in the proceedings arisingfrom FIR No. 290/2022 dated 6[th]February, 2022, registered under Sections302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860[3]at P.S. Mahendra Park, Delhi.

Factual Matrix

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:2.1.On 5[th]February, 2022, at about 11:12 PM, information regarding astabbing incident was received at P.S. Mahendra Park, Delhi, and entrustedto ASI Jai Prakash. The victim, Dharmender (aged 19 years), was initiallytreated at BJRM Hospital vide MLC No. 192531/22 and thereafter shifted toSafdarjung Hospital, where he later succumbed to his injuries.

1 “BNSS”2 “CrPC”

BAIL APPLN. 3544/2025

Page 1 of 6

2.2.However, before his demise, the victim’s statement was recorded. Hestated that on the day of the incident, around 9:00 PM, while returning to hisslum through RU Nagar Block Gate, Jahangirpuri, he collided with twoindividuals. When they pushed him, he retaliated by slapping one of them,upon which he was stabbed with knife. On the basis of his statement, anFIR was registered under Sections 307/34 IPC; however, upon his demise,the offence was altered to Sections 302/34 IPC.

2.3.During investigation, the place of incident was inspected, photographswere taken, and the victim’s blood-stained shirt was seized. Two separateCCTV sources were also recovered: one from camera installed at the rearside of factory located in RU Nagar Industrial Area, which captured theoccurrence, and another from camera near Lift No. 3, service road,Jahangirpuri Metro Station, which provided clearer picture. The latterfootage shows the accused following the victim, with the Applicantovertaking him, pointing knife at his neck, and upon resistance, one of theaccused stabbing him in the abdomen. The victim then ran towards theMetro Station, while both accused fled towards the slums.

2.4.On 6[th]February, 2022, acting on secret informer’s tip-off, theApplicant and the CCL were apprehended. The knife allegedly used in theoffence was recovered from the Applicant and seized. On 19[th]February,2022, the doctor opined that the injuries sustained by the victim wereconsistent with the recovered weapon. The MLC recorded an incised woundmeasuring 3 cm × 1 cm on the abdomen. Further, the Applicant’s CDR andCAF records placed him at the place of the incident.2.5.The Applicant thereafter moved bail application before the Trial

3 “IPC”

BAIL APPLN. 3544/2025

Page 2 of 6

Court, which was dismissed by order dated 3[rd]June, 2025.

Contentions of the Applicant

3.Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant has been falselyimplicated and his name does not appear in the FIR. The case against himrests solely on the disclosure statement, which by itself has no evidentiaryvalue and the alleged weapon has been planted upon him. Further, all publicwitnesses have already been examined and discharged, and none of them hasidentified the Applicant during their depositions before the Court. Nothinghas been recovered from the Applicant or at his instance.

4.It is further submitted that the Applicant has been in custody since 6[th]June, 2022. With the chargesheet already filed and charges framed, there isno further requirement of his continued incarceration, particularly as the trialis likely to take time. Given that the Applicant has no criminal antecedents,his continued custody would serve no useful purpose and would amount topunitive detention.

Contentions of the State

5.Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State, strongly opposes the presentbail application and submits that the offence is of grave and serious nature.He contends that sufficient material has been collected during investigationto implicate the Applicant in the present case. This includes CCTV footageclearly showing the Applicant involved in the stabbing of the deceased.Although one of the witnesses, namely Ramlal @ Ravi, did not identify theApplicant, another CCTV recording from different camera focused on theplace of incident depicts the Applicant, and in that footage, he has beenidentified by the witness.

6.It is further submitted that the weapon of offence was recovered at the

BAIL APPLN. 3544/2025

instance of the Applicant, and the doctor has opined that the injuriessustained by the deceased were consistent with this weapon. The CDRrecords also place the Applicant at the place of incident. In addition, forensicanalysis has confirmed that the blood found on the recovered knife as wellas on the Applicant’s clothes matched the blood of the deceased.Analysis

7.Having considered the submissions and the material placed on record,this Court finds no merit in the contentions raised on behalf of theApplicant. It is well settled principle of law that while considering anapplication for bail, the Court must keep in mind several factors relating tothe case, such as – whether there is any prima facie reasonable ground tobelieve that the accused has committed the offence, the nature and gravity ofthe accusation, severity of potential punishment, risk of the accusedabsconding or fleeing if released on bail, the likelihood of the offence beingrepeated, etc[4]. It is equally well settled that, at the stage of bail, the Court isnot to conduct mini-trial[5]or undertake detailed appreciation of theevidence collected during investigation or the depositions of witnesses. TheCourt is only to form prima facie view on the basis of the materialavailable on record.

8.The principal argument advanced on behalf of the Applicant is that hehas not been identified by the witnesses and that nothing has been recoveredfrom him. However, this contention does not hold weight. While it is truethat one of the witnesses, namely Ramlal @ Ravi, did not identify theApplicant, the CCTV footage recovered from another camera at the place of

4 Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr. (2010) 14 SCC 4965

incident clearly depicts the Applicant, and in that footage, he has beenidentified. Further, the recovery of the weapon at the instance of theApplicant, the medical opinion confirming that the injuries on the deceasedwere consistent with this weapon, the CDR records placing him at the sceneof occurrence, and the forensic analysis matching the blood on the recoveredknife and his clothes with that of the deceased, together constitute primafacie sufficient material in order to implicate the Applicant.

9.At this stage, it may be apposite to refer to the recent decision ofBhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar alias Deepu alias Deepak and Anr.[6],wherein the Supreme Court emphasized that bail is discretionary relief, tobe granted or denied based on the specific facts and circumstances of eachcase. The relevant extract is as follows:

“11.The grant of bail is discretionary relief which necessarilymeans that such discretion would have to be exercised in judiciousmanner and not as matter of course. The grant of bail is dependentupon contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the Courtand may vary from case to case.There cannot be any exhaustiveparameters set out for considering the application for grant of bail.However, it can be noted that:

11.1.While granting bail the court has to keep in mind factors suchas the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment, if theaccusations entail conviction and the nature of evidence in supportof the accusations.

11.2.Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered

with or the apprehension of there being threat for the complainantshould also weigh with the Court in the matter of grant of bail.

11.3.While it is not accepted to have the entire evidence establishingthe guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but there ought tobe always prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of thecharge.

11.4. Frivolity of prosecution should always be considered and it isonly the clement of genuineness that shall have to be considered in thematter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to

6 2023 INSC 761.

the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, theaccused is entitled to have an order of bail.”

[Emphasis Supplied]

10.In light of the aforesaid legal principles, and upon consideration of thefacts and circumstances of the case, this Court, at this juncture, finds noground to enlarge the Applicant on bail.

11.Accordingly, the present bail application is dismissed along with thepending application.

12.It is clarified that any observations made in the present order are forthe purpose of deciding the present bail application and should not influencethe outcome of the trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion onthe merits of the case.

SEPTEMBER 17, 2025nk

SANJEEV NARULA, J

BAIL APPLN. 3544/2025