$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010041582025 + BAIL APPLN. 454/2025 KAPIL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vineet, Adv. versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Richa Dhawan, APP Insp. Dinesh Kumar P.S. Punjabi Bagh Mr. Vipin Bhaskar, Adv. for Complainant. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R % 18.08.2026 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘BNSS’), read with Section 528 of the BNSS, seeks grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 189/2023, registered at P.S. Punjabi Bagh, dated 16.04.2023, under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, referred to as ‘IPC’). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case was initially registered under Sections 308/34 of the IPC, and was subsequently converted to Sections 302/34 of the IPC after the death of the victim, ten days after the incident. He further submits that there was no criminal intention on the part of the petitioner to commit the murder of the deceased. It is submitted that 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 20/08/2026 at 10:47:55 there was no prior conspiracy and that the incident occurred at the spur of the moment. He further submits that the ingredients of the alleged offence are not made out against the petitioner and that the only eyewitness to the incident has turned hostile. 4. Per contra, learned APP for the State submits that the FIR was registered on the statement of the victim, who subsequently succumbed to his injuries. She further submits that the victim had specifically named the petitioner in the FIR. It is submitted that an altercation admittedly took place between the parties. The question as to whether the incident occurred at the spur of the moment, whether there was any prior conspiracy, and whether the altercation was accompanied by the requisite mens rea are all questions of fact which are to be determined during trial. She further submits that only six out of 34 witnesses have been examined so far and that the material witnesses, as well as the scientific evidence, are yet to be fully brought on record. 5. This court has heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. As per the status report filed on record, the entire altercation is captured on the CCTV footage installed at the milk dairy where the incident took place. 7. Moreover, as per the prosecution's case, the injured/deceased was struck on the head with a baseball bat. It is further the prosecution's case that the petitioner called his friend to the spot, who brought a baseball bat from his vehicle, with which the deceased was allegedly struck. 8. The allegations against the petitioner are serious and heinous in nature. Having regard to the gravity of the offence and the material placed on record, no ground for grant of bail is made out at this stage. Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed. 9. Nothing contained in the present order shall be construed as an 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 20/08/2026 at 10:47:55 expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 10. A copy of this order be communicated to the learned Trial Court for information and necessary compliance. 11. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J AUGUST 18, 2026/prg/rm 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 20/08/2026 at 10:47:55