$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 3991/2024 VIPIN @ ROHIT .....Petitioner Through: Mr. J.S. Kushwaha, Advocate. versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Laksh Khanna, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA O R D E R % 18.03.2025 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] 1. It is quite unfortunate that neither the original investigating officer nor the SHO has appeared to assist the learned APP. Therefore, learned prosecutor has addressed only on the basis of a status report, which is today accepted across the board. A copy of this order be sent to the Commissioner of Police who shall ensure that in every bail matter, the Investigating Officer or the SHO with complete file should remain present to assist the prosecutors. 2. Broadly speaking, the prosecution case for offence under Section 302/201/34 IPC is based on circumstantial evidence. The deceased was brother of the present petitioner. The allegation of the prosecution is that the deceased, who was a drug addict, picked up quarrel with his brother (the petitioner) and their father (co-accused) at their house. In the process, the petitioner and his father beat up the deceased with the handle of a spade, which was already available at their house since they are labourers. On This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/03/2025 at 12:13:47 account of those beatings, the deceased became unconscious. Next morning, the accused persons put the deceased in a blue plastic drum and dumped the body on the road of Sector 23, Rohini. 3. Learned prosecutor submits that Ms. Sarita, wife of the deceased in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C stated that she was told by neighbours about the beatings given to the deceased by the accused persons. But none of those neighbours having been examined by the Investigating Officer, statement of Ms. Sarita cannot be admissible. 4. The only evidence available against the petitioner is an alleged CCTV footage reflecting the petitioner carrying a blue drum. Admittedly, the said CCTV footage does not show contents of that drum. No other evidence is available against the petitioner. 5. However, learned prosecutor at this stage submits that the CCTV footage as well as the gunny bag recovered from house of the accused were sent for forensic analysis on 04.10.2021. Admittedly, till date no result has been received. That would not be a valid reason to keep the petitioner in jail. 6. Considering these circumstances, the application is allowed. The petitioner 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 concerned Trial Court (the Court of Sessions). GIRISH KATHPALIA, J MARCH 18, 2025/ry Click here to check corrigendum, if any This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/03/2025 at 12:13:47