Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court, in its judgment dated 31st July 2025, granted regular bail to the applicant accused in a murder case registered under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court held that although the applicant was seen in CCTV footage minutes before the incident, there was no direct evidence linking him to the actual crime. Noting that “he has thus been arrayed on the basis of mere suspicion,” the Court observed that such suspicion must be left to be tested at trial and that no recovery or eyewitness statement supported the applicant’s role in the stabbing. Bail was granted on the condition of furnishing a personal bond with surety to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
Facts
The FIR was registered after a patrolling officer found a blood-covered body abandoned near Meat Chowk, Gautampuri Phase-1, Delhi, in the early hours of 10 January 2024. Upon police arrival, four young men were seen dragging the injured person and fled on spotting the patrol. They were apprehended after a chase and identified as the accused persons. They allegedly disclosed that a fifth person—Sahil @ Bhondi (the applicant)—was also involved.
The deceased, Gaurav, had suffered multiple knife injuries. The chargesheet under Sections 302/34 IPC was filed, and during investigation, the CCTV footage showed the presence of the applicant with the other co-accused before the time of incident, but not during the actual assault.
Issues
- Whether the applicant could be denied bail solely on the basis of being seen with co-accused before the commission of offence?
- Whether there was sufficient material to justify the applicant’s continued detention pending trial?
Petitioner’s Arguments
The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated and was not present at the time of the crime. He highlighted that the initial GD only mentioned four unknown individuals and not him. He submitted that there was no discovery or recovery attributable to him, and that his alleged involvement was based solely on disclosure statements of co-accused, which were not substantive evidence under Section 30 of the Evidence Act. He had earlier been granted interim bail due to the death of his child and had complied with all bail conditions without any allegation of misuse or tampering. It was further submitted that he met the triple test laid down in P. Chidambaram v. CBI, and had already spent over one year and three months in custody while the trial remained at a nascent stage.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State opposed the bail application, stating that the applicant was involved in a heinous offence and had previously been involved in a similar offence during his juvenile years. It was submitted that CCTV footage showed him accompanying the co-accused before the incident, and disclosure statements of the accused named him. The State argued that his association with the group planning to harm the deceased was sufficient to show his involvement.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined the evidence in detail, particularly focusing on the CCTV footage and witness statements. The Court noted that the CCTV showed the applicant leaving the scene in an auto-rickshaw at around 12:30 AM, approximately eight minutes before the incident occurred. The stabbing was committed by four others, who were clearly seen in the footage and were also identified by eyewitnesses. Notably, the eyewitnesses did not name the applicant nor mention his presence at the time of the incident.
Additionally, the Court took into account that no blood of the deceased was found on the applicant’s clothes or footwear, unlike other accused. The Court emphasized that recovery of the murder weapon was not linked to the applicant but rather to co-accused Armaan. The only basis for the applicant’s arrest was the disclosure statement of co-accused and CCTV footage showing his presence before the offence.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied on the principles laid down in P. Chidambaram v. CBI, (2020) 13 SCC 337, which reiterates that bail should be granted when the accused is not a flight risk, is unlikely to tamper with evidence, or influence witnesses. The Court further referred to general jurisprudence that disclosure statements by co-accused are not substantive evidence unless corroborated by other material. Thus, mere suspicion or association is not enough to deny bail.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the applicant was not named by eyewitnesses, not captured in the act in CCTV footage, and no material evidence was recovered from him. While he was seen earlier with the group, such circumstantial presence alone could not suffice to link him directly to the crime. His prior conduct of complying with interim bail orders and surrendering voluntarily was also noted in his favour.
The Court held:
“He has thus been arrayed on the basis of mere suspicion as a co-accused. At this stage, the said suspicion remains a matter of trial.”
Recognising his young age (19 years) and his clean conduct during interim bail, the Court found it appropriate to release him on bail pending trial.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to the applicant, holding that the prosecution lacked direct evidence linking him to the crime. The Court emphasized that circumstantial presence prior to the incident, without corroboration by recovery or eyewitness accounts, was insufficient to justify prolonged incarceration. The Court ordered his release on bail subject to conditions imposed by the Trial Court.
Implications
This judgment reinforces the principle that “suspicion alone cannot take the place of proof,” especially in cases involving serious charges such as murder. It emphasizes the importance of substantive evidence and the rights of an undertrial to bail, particularly when the trial is at an early stage and the accused has already undergone prolonged custody. The ruling could serve as a precedent for similar bail applications where the accused is linked to the offence only by association or weak circumstantial evidence.
Cases Referred
P. Chidambaram v. CBI, (2020) 13 SCC 337 – Cited to emphasize the triple test for bail: risk of tampering with evidence, likelihood of fleeing justice, and influencing witnesses. The Court applied this test to the applicant and found he fulfilled all criteria for release.
FAQs
1. Can a person be denied bail solely based on co-accused’s disclosure statement?
No. As held by the Court, disclosure statements are not substantive evidence and cannot form the sole basis for denying bail.
2. What role does CCTV evidence play in bail decisions?
CCTV footage can be crucial, but the Court will assess whether the footage captures the actual act or merely pre-incident presence. Here, presence before the crime was not enough to deny bail.
3. What is the significance of interim bail compliance in deciding regular bail?
Compliance with interim bail conditions reflects positively on the accused’s conduct and supports the case for regular bail.