BAIL APPLN. 2481/2025

BAIL APPLN. 2481/2025 Page 1 of 4 pages
$~5

• IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
  % Date of Decision: 11.02.2026
• BAIL APPLN. 2481/2025
  SHUBHAM @ RITIK …..Petitioner
  Through: Mr. K. Z. Khan and Mr. Suresh
  Kumar, Advocates.
  versus
  THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI …..Respondent
  Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State
  with Inspector Braham Prakash,
  Inspector Ashok Kumar and SI
  Vishnu Singh, PS Badarpur.
  CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

1. The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 536/2022 of
   PS Badarpur for offence under Section 302/34 IPC.
2. I have heard learned counsel for accused/applicant and learned APP
   assisted by IO/Inspector Braham Prakash.
3. Broadly speaking, prosecution case as flowing out of the FIR
   registered on the complaint of nephew of the deceased is as follows. The
   first informant is working as a helper in the tent house run by his father. On
   18.12.2022, they had installed a tent in connection with betrothal ceremony
   BAIL APPLN. 2481/2025 Page 2 of 4 pages
   of a neighbour, and he was working there. That neighbour also being of the
   same community, relatives of the first informant except his paternal uncle
   (the deceased) also were the guests. At that time, one Shubham @ Tolu
   called up Kohinoor @ Chavanni over phone and there was exchange of
   abuses. After that, his cousin Gaurav asked the first informant to call his
   paternal uncle (the deceased). After some time, the deceased told him that
   Chavanni had been taught a lesson. Thereafter, at about 07:45 pm when all
   of them sat for dinner the deceased left the place, stating that he would
   return shortly. After some time, the first informant went out to call the
   deceased and at that time he saw Chavanni, Prashant and one more boy were
   assaulting the deceased; Chavanni was holding a country made pistol while
   Prashant and the third boy were carrying knives and were threatening to kill
   the deceased. After they stabbed the deceased, father of the first informant
   reached and shifted the deceased to hospital. The complainant de facto
   stated that he had seen all three assailants earlier also engaged in goondaism
   in the same colony and they had killed his paternal uncle to avenge beating
   of Chavanni.
4. As against the above backdrop, learned counsel for accused/applicant
   contends that since the FIR does not name the accused/applicant, he
   deserves to be released on bail. It is also contended that identity of the
   accused/applicant is in dispute insofar as name of the accused/applicant is
   only Shubham, not Ritik. It is submitted that the accused/applicant was
   arrested only on disclosure and was not identified by anyone even from
   CCTV footage of the spot.
   BAIL APPLN. 2481/2025 Page 3 of 4 pages
5. Learned APP assisted by IO/Inspector Braham Prakash strongly
   opposes the bail application on the ground that in his testimony as PW1, the
   first informant has supported the prosecution case and even identified the
   accused/applicant as the person who used knife to stab the deceased. It is
   also submitted that the CCTV footage was sent to FSL and genuineness of
   the footage has been confirmed by the FSL. It is also submitted that the
   blood stained knife was recovered at the instance of the accused/applicant
   and the FSL confirmed presence of blood of the deceased on the recovered
   knife. Even clothes worn by the accused/applicant at the time of the incident
   were recovered at his instance, according to prosecution and the CCTV
   footage depicts the accused/applicant wearing same clothes. Further, learned
   APP also points out antecedents in the form of three more criminal cases
   registered against the accused/applicant.
6. As regards antecedents, learned counsel for accused/applicant submits
   that out of those three cases, in one case the accused/applicant stands
   acquitted while other two are pending in which the accused/applicant has
   been admitted to bail.
7. Looking into the seriousness of the offence coupled with the evidence
   mentioned above, I do not find it a fit case to release the accused/applicant
   on bail. However, since the accused/applicant is in custody with effect from
   22.12.2022 and prosecution submits that they need only five dates to
   conclude entire prosecution evidence, the learned trial court is requested to
   BAIL APPLN. 2481/2025 Page 4 of 4 pages
   conclude the entire prosecution evidence within two months. Of course, the
   defence side also shall not take any adjournment before the trial court.
8. With the above observations and directions to the trial court, at this
   stage the bail application is dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to the
   learned trial court.
9. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for
   being conveyed to the accused/applicant.
10. At this stage, it is informed by both sides that date before the trial
    court is 30.03.2026. That being so, the learned trial court is requested to
    prepone the date of trial according to its calendar and the period of two
    months to conclude prosecution evidence shall be counted from the said
    preponed date.
    GIRISH KATHPALIA
    (JUDGE)
    FEBRUARY 11, 2026/dr