High CourtsSingle Bench

Rahul vs State Nct Of Delhi

Delhi High Court · Decided on 2 April 2026 · Citation: (2026) 04 DEL CK 0092

HON’BLE JUDGES
Girish Kathpalia, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 161 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 302, 323
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 1594 Of 2025 & Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 12633 Of 2025
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

11 paragraphs · 397 words

Girish Kathpalia, J

1.

The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 185/2023 of Police Station Nangloi for offence under Section 302/323/34 IPC.

1.1 This bail application came up for the first hearing on 28.04.2025 before the predecessor bench and thereafter continued getting adjourned before different benches. Along with 179 such old pending bail applications, this application also was transferred to this bench.

1.2 Today is the first hearing before me. I have heard learned counsel for accused/applicant and learned APP for State assisted by IO/Inspector Nanag Ram Meena.

2.

Broadly stated, prosecution case is that on 14.02.2023, a fight took place between two groups in which one Sahil was stabbed to death by accused  Sunny.  The  assailant  group  allegedly consisted  of  7  persons  while the deceased person’s group allegedly consisted of 3 persons. The role ascribed to the accused/applicant is that he was present at the spot as a part of the assailant group. The accused/applicant was arrested on 23.04.2023 and he refused to participate in Test Identification Parade.

3.

Learned counsel for accused/applicant submits that despite passage of almost three years, trial has not proceeded and the accused/applicant is in jail despite there being no cogent evidence against him.

4.

Learned APP opposes the bail application on the ground that the accused/applicant was identified by the eye witnesses Amanul Haq and Nadeem as the person who caught hold of the deceased and thereafter Sunny stabbed the deceased multiple times.

5.

But the statements of Amanul Haq and Nadeem, recorded under Section 161 CrPC, reflect that what the accused/applicant did was that he caught hold of only Nadeem in the course of the group fight. Neither of the alleged witnesses stated that at the time of the alleged stabbing, the deceased was caught hold of by the accused/applicant.

6.

Considering  the  overall  circumstances  as  mentioned above,  I find  no reason to further deprive the accused/applicant liberty. Therefore, the application is allowed and the accused/applicant is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. Accompanying applications stand disposed of.

7.

The accused/applicant shall not contact any of the prosecution witnesses in any manner whatsoever.

8.

A copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the concerned Jail Superintendent for informing the accused/applicant.