Delhi High Court Grants Bail in Attempt to Murder Case After Injured Witness Fails to Appear and Co-Accused Already Get Bail
Facts
The petitioner, Om Tripathi, filed a regular bail application before the Delhi High Court.
The case arose from FIR No. 931 of 2023 registered at Police Station Sarai Rohilla for offences under Sections 307, 195A, 506, 120B and 34 IPC, along with Section 83 of the Juvenile Justice Act.
The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, along with co-accused persons, assaulted the injured Iqbal.
According to the prosecution, the petitioner was armed with a surgical blade, while the co-accused persons were armed with knives.
As per the MLC, the injured Iqbal sustained one stab wound on the left hand below the elbow and multiple incised wounds on his face.
The injured was released on the same day after receiving medical treatment.
The alleged incident occurred on 22 December 2023. The petitioner was arrested on 27 December 2023 and remained in custody since then.
Issues
- Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail in a case registered under Section 307 IPC and other allied offences.
- Whether continued custody was justified when the injured had been released on the same day after treatment.
- Whether parity with co-accused persons, who were allegedly armed with more dangerous weapons and had already been granted bail, supported the petitioner’s release.
- Whether the injured witness’s failure to appear before the Trial Court despite summons weighed in favour of bail.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that he had been in custody since 27 December 2023.
He submitted that the co-accused persons, namely Sonu and Mumtaz, had already been granted bail.
It was further submitted that the co-accused persons were allegedly carrying knives, whereas the petitioner was alleged to have been carrying a surgical blade.
The petitioner therefore sought bail on the grounds of custody, parity and the nature of allegations.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State opposed the bail application.
The State submitted that the injured witness had been summoned three to four times by the Trial Court but had not appeared for his testimony.
It was stated that the injured witness’s testimony was now scheduled to be recorded on 17 July 2026.
Analysis of the Law
The Court considered the nature of injuries, the petitioner’s period of custody, parity with co-accused, and the progress of trial.
Although the FIR invoked Section 307 IPC, the Court noted that the injured was released on the same date after medical treatment.
The Court also considered that co-accused persons, who were allegedly armed with comparatively more dangerous weapons, had already been granted bail.
The failure of the injured witness to appear before the Trial Court despite repeated summons was also treated as a relevant circumstance.
Precedent Analysis
The judgment does not discuss or rely upon any reported precedent.
The decision was based on the facts of the case, including the nature of injuries, custody period, parity with co-accused and delay in recording the injured witness’s testimony.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court noted that the injured Iqbal had sustained one stab wound on the left hand below the elbow and multiple incised wounds on the face.
The Court also noted that the injured was released on the same day after medical treatment.
The Court found it relevant that co-accused Sonu and Mumtaz had already been granted bail, even though they were allegedly carrying knives, which were comparatively more dangerous weapons.
The Court further considered that injured Iqbal had not been appearing before the Trial Court despite being summoned three to four times.
In these circumstances, the Court held that there was no reason to deprive the petitioner of liberty any further.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court allowed the bail application filed by Om Tripathi.
The Court directed that the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹10,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
The Court also directed that a copy of the order be immediately transmitted to the concerned Jail Superintendent for informing the petitioner.
The Court specifically directed that the petitioner shall not contact the injured Iqbal in any manner whatsoever.
Case Details
Case: Om Tripathi v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Court: Delhi High Court
Case Number: BAIL APPLN. 1786 of 2026
Judge: Justice Girish Kathpalia
Date: 07 July 2026
Result: Regular bail granted; petitioner directed not to contact the injured witness.
