$~113 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 4296/2025, CRL.M.A. 33294/2025, CRL.M.A. 33295/2025, CRL.M.A. 5901/2026 & CRL.M.A. 5902/2026 UMESH CHAUHAN @ ANKIT .....Petitioner Through: Mr Sumer Singh Boparai, Mr Shubham Raj Anand, Mr Surya Pratap Singh, Mr Sirhaan Seth, Advs. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for the State. Insp. Nitin Kumar. Insp. Sandeep. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 08.07.2026 1. By way of the instant application, the applicant seeks regular bail in connection with FIR No.832/2020 for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at police station Ranhola Outer District Delhi. 2. The trial is pending against the applicant bearing Sessions Case No.47/2021 before the Court of Special Judge West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the 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 13/07/2026 at 16:54:40 applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. He submits that PW1 Vikas Chauhan, who is the brother of the applicant and is the son of the deceased, has not supported the prosecution version. Learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the testimony of PW9 Ramesh Kashyap, who was examined as a purported eye witness, where according to him, he also did not support the prosecution case. He completely denied his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 [Cr.P.C.] (marked as PW9/A). According to him, the applicant has already undergone sufficient incarceration i.e. 05 years 05 months 09 days as on 13.02.2026, which is close to about six years as of now. He thus contends that the initial jail conduct of the application though was unsatisfactory, however, past last one year conduct has been found to be satisfactory by the jail authority. There is no other criminal case against him. 4. The incident had occurred when some scuffled has taken place between the family members which has resulted in causing injuries to his father and eventually, he died. 5. The submissions are strongly opposed by learned counsel appearing for the State and he contends that, bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation and the fact that there is direct evidence against the applicant in the form of CCTV footage. The applicant’s role is clearly visible and, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for regular bail. He further contends that the person who was in possession of the CCTV footage is yet to be examined. 6. Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, learned APP also pointed out the order dated 11.07.2024 passed by this Court when the applicant withdrew his earlier application with liberty to withdraw the same after the witness of CCTV 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 13/07/2026 at 16:54:40 footage is examined before the trial Court. 7. It remains undisputed that the said witness has already been examined, however, his cross-examination is underway. Out of a total 34 witnesses, the evidence of 28 witnesses has already been recorded. The evidence of PW1 and PW9 prima facie would not support the prosecution's case. Mr. Ramesh Kashyap PW9 has fully rescinded from his statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. 8. The CCTV footage, as per the prosecution case itself, indicates that the deceased’s father was running after the present applicant with ustara and the present applicant was having knife in his hand. On account of that scuffle, the injuries were sustained by the deceased and eventually, he succumbed to those injuries. The Court has also perused the MLC, and finds that bearing in mind the overall facts and circumstances, and the fact that the application is in jail for about six years, he is entitled for grant of regular bail. Accordingly, the applicant is directed to be released on regular bail, subject to the conditions to be imposed by the trial Court. 9. It is clarified that any of the observations made herein, shall not be an expression on the merits of the case. 10. Application stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JULY 8, 2026/P 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 13/07/2026 at 16:54:40