HEADNOTE
Suphiyan Ali v. State of GNCT of Delhi
Court: High Court of Delhi
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Girish Kathpalia
Date of Decision: January 21, 2026
Case Number: Bail Application No. 260/2026
Laws Involved:
Sections 309(6), 310(2), 311, 317(3), 61(2), 3(5), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Sections 25 & 27, Arms Act, 1959
Keywords: Bail, robbery with toy gun, CCTV footage, delay in FIR, parity in bail, personal liberty
Summary
The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to an accused charged with robbery and allied offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Arms Act, observing serious doubts about the prosecution version. Justice Girish Kathpalia noted unexplained delay of two days in lodging the FIR, inconsistencies between the FIR narrative and CCTV footage, and the improbability of multiple armed persons entering a jeweller’s house and fleeing after allegedly stealing only a single anklet. The Court also took note that co-accused persons had already been granted bail on similar facts. Holding that continued incarceration was not justified in light of these circumstances, the Court allowed the bail application while clarifying that observations made would not prejudice the trial.
Court’s decision
The Delhi High Court allowed the regular bail application filed by the accused and directed his release on bail on furnishing a personal bond of ₹10,000 with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. The Court held that no further deprivation of personal liberty was warranted in the facts of the case.
Facts
The prosecution case arose from FIR No. 357/2024 registered at PS Chitranjan Park. The complainant, a jeweller, alleged that on 28 November 2024, three to four persons entered his house, threatened his wife with a pistol, assaulted him, and fled after snatching an anklet from his wife’s foot. It was later revealed that the pistol used was a toy gun. The FIR was lodged after a delay of two days. The accused was arrested and sought regular bail before the High Court.
Issues
The principal issue before the Court was whether the accused was entitled to regular bail considering the nature of allegations, delay in lodging the FIR, CCTV footage of the incident, and parity with co-accused who had already been released on bail.
Petitioner’s arguments
The petitioner contended that the prosecution story was inherently unbelievable, as it was improbable that multiple armed persons would enter the house of a jeweller and leave after stealing only one anklet. It was argued that the two-day delay in lodging the FIR remained unexplained. The petitioner relied on CCTV footage, which allegedly depicted a version of events inconsistent with the FIR narrative. It was also pointed out that similarly placed co-accused had already been granted bail.
Respondent’s arguments
The State opposed the bail application, arguing that the role of the petitioner was distinct from that of other co-accused, as he was allegedly carrying the toy gun while others played lesser roles. The prosecution contended that the seriousness of the offence warranted continued custody.
Analysis of the law
The Court reiterated that at the stage of bail, the focus is on the plausibility of the prosecution case, the necessity of continued custody, and the right to personal liberty. Where material on record raises serious doubts about the veracity of the prosecution version, prolonged incarceration is not justified. The Court also emphasised the principle of parity, especially where co-accused have already been granted bail on similar allegations.
Court’s reasoning
Justice Girish Kathpalia observed that the CCTV footage, as discussed in an earlier bail order of a co-accused, presented a narrative distinct from the FIR. The unexplained delay in lodging the complaint further weakened the prosecution case. The Court also found it difficult to accept the prosecution version that multiple intruders, some allegedly armed, would commit a robbery in a jeweller’s house and flee after taking only a single anklet. These factors cumulatively persuaded the Court that further detention of the accused was unwarranted.
Conclusion
The High Court concluded that the accused was entitled to bail, subject to conditions, and clarified that the observations made in the bail order would not influence the merits of the trial.
Implications
This order reiterates that bail courts must carefully scrutinise the prosecution narrative, especially where objective material like CCTV footage raises doubts. It reinforces the principle that personal liberty cannot be curtailed mechanically, particularly when the prosecution version appears improbable and co-accused have already been granted bail.
Case law references
- Principles governing grant of bail – Bail is the rule and jail an exception where custody is not necessary. Applied.
- Parity in bail jurisprudence – Similarly placed co-accused entitled to similar relief. Applied.
FAQs
1. Why did the High Court grant bail in this robbery case?
Because of unexplained delay in FIR, inconsistencies with CCTV footage, improbability of the incident, and parity with co-accused.
2. Does use of a toy gun affect the bail decision?
Yes. It was a relevant factor while assessing the gravity and credibility of the allegations.
3. Will the bail order affect the trial?
No. The Court clarified that its observations will not prejudice the trial.
Also Read: Bombay High Court restores eviction decree for permanent structural changes in hospital tenancy
