$~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 2291/2026 AMIT VERMA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Bhuwan Raj, Mr. Anubhav Mehrotra, Mr. Subhangam Padhy, Advs. versus THE STATE (GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for State. SI Tanuj Kumar, PS New Ashok Nagar CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R % 09.07.2026 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that it is a clear-cut case of murder and not suicide, and that it is the petitioner alone who has committed the offence. She further submits that the reliance placed on the Call Detail Records (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CDRs’) is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It is submitted that the deceased was working and residing in Delhi and, at the relevant time, the petitioner was also in Delhi and not at Hamirpur. She submits that the petitioner deliberately created evidence to falsely project his presence at Hamirpur. She further submits that the petitioner was in constant touch with the deceased and had instigated her to commit suicide. It is further submitted that the petitioner was in possession of obscene photographs and videos of the deceased on his mobile phone and 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 10/07/2026 at 11:16:44 used to blackmail her. Owing to such pressure and mental stress, the deceased ultimately committed suicide. 3. Learned counsel for the complainant further submits that even after the orders passed by the Allahabad High Court, the petitioner continued to reside with the deceased for more than one month. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was at Hamirpur at the time of the alleged incident. He further submits that the deceased was a major, was employed in a Government Department in Delhi and was fully capable of taking her own decisions. She was a well-qualified and competent person and had herself filed an affidavit before the Court stating that she was a major. He submits that the orders passed by the Allahabad High Court, pursuant to which the petitioner was granted bail, also record the same. He further submits that it was the complainant-mother who was threatening and instigating the deceased to commit suicide. 5. He further submits that the mobile phones of both the petitioner and the deceased have already been seized by the Investigating Officer (IO) and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (hereinafter referred to as the ‘FSL’) for examination. He contends that the mobile phone of the complainant, i.e., the mother of the deceased, should also be seized and sent to the FSL as, according to him, it was the complainant who had been sending messages to the deceased asking her to commit suicide on account of her relationship with the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further handed over in Court a disability certificate of the deceased showing that she suffered from 40% permanent disability in relation to her brain, as assessed under the guidelines issued under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter 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 10/07/2026 at 11:16:44 referred to as the ‘RPwD Act’). He submits that although the certificate may have been obtained for the purpose of securing Government employment, it also reflects upon the mental condition of the deceased. 7. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the aforesaid disability certificate has been produced for the first time today during the course of hearing. She further submits that at the time of seeking bail before the Allahabad High Court, the petitioner had never placed this certificate on record. According to her, had the said certificate been relied upon at that stage, the deceased would not have been competent to swear the affidavit dated 06.01.2026 on her own and, instead, an affidavit of her guardian would have been required. She submits that the petitioner is now placing reliance upon the said disability certificate only to create a false defence in the present case. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the disability certificate merely records the extent of disability suffered by the deceased and does not declare her to be of unsound mind or otherwise incapable of taking her own decisions. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has joined the investigation and even when the Investigating Officer called the wife and father of the petitioner, the petitioner produced them before the Investigating Officer. 10. Learned APP for the State submits that the petitioner is changing his stand, as during the course of interrogation he had stated that someone else was responsible for the death of the deceased, whereas before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner is contending that it was the mother of the deceased who used to instigate her. 11. So far as the presence of the petitioner in Delhi is concerned, learned 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 10/07/2026 at 11:16:44 counsel for the complainant has not been able to point out any material on record to show that the petitioner was present in Delhi at the relevant time. On the other hand, the CDRs of the petitioner prima facie show that he was at Hamirpur at the time of the incident. 12. Moreover, the Allahabad High Court has already granted bail to the petitioner in a case registered at the instance of the deceased under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’), wherein the deceased herself had filed an affidavit stating that she was not a minor, that she was residing with the petitioner of her own free will, and that she was in a consensual relationship with him. She had further stated that the said First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as the "FIR") had been lodged under the pressure of her family members. 13. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, a prima facie case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. 14. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹50,000/- with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/IO/SHO concerned, and further subject to the following conditions: i) The petitioner shall remain available on mobile numbers shared by him with the Police. ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make an attempt to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence in any manner. iii) In case of change of residential address/contact details, the petitioner shall promptly inform the concerned I.O/SHO. 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 10/07/2026 at 11:16:44 iv) The petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the Investigating Officer and shall cooperate with the investigation. 15. The present application is disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. 16. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J JULY 9, 2026/b/av 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 10/07/2026 at 11:16:44