$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 1091/2026 MUSTAQ .....Applicant Through: Mr. Rohit Singh, Mr. Sarthak Sisodia and Mr. Ketan Goyal, Advs. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SHO RANHOLA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Satish Kumar, APP CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE O R D E R % 13.07.2026 1. By virtue of the present application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the applicant seeks grant of regular bail in FIR No.491/2025 dated 25.07.2025 registered at PS.: Ranhola, Delhi under Sections 109(1)/191(2)/191(3)/190/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959. 2. Succinctly put, the present case was registered following a violent assault. Insofar as the present applicant is concerned, he has been named in the FIR, who, along with 10 to 12 other persons, in furtherance of a pre- planned conspiracy assaulted victims Vijay Kumar and Vipul Singh at Shiv Vihar, Vikas Nagar. In the CCTV footage, the applicant is stated to be clearly seen hitting the victims with ‘danda’. 3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that (i) the applicant is 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 16/07/2026 at 11:13:14 innocent person who has been falsely implicated in the present case as also there has been no recovery effected from him; (ii) the alleged incident occurred due to a sudden fight without premeditation on either side; (iii) the complainant, injured and other eye witnesses in their evidence have altogether denied the occurrence of the incident; (iv) the applicant is under incarceration for more than 11 months and all the material witnesses have already been examined leaving aside only the formal witnesses; and lastly (v) two of the co-accused have already been granted bail. Lastly, he relies upon the statement of complainant (PW1), injured (PW4) and the two eyewitnesses (PW5) and (PW6), to submit that they all have turned hostile before the learned Trial Court. 4. Per contra, learned APP for the State submits that (i) the applicant is clearly seen hitting the applicant in the CCTV; and (ii) the applicant herein is also involved in two other FIRs involving serious offences. 5. This Court has heard learned counsel for applicant and learned APP and perused the documents and materials on record. 6. Though it is primarily the case of the applicant that since as many as four witnesses, being the complainant (PW1), injured (PW4) and the two eyewitnesses (PW5) and (PW6) have all turned hostile, the case of the prosecution is false and the applicant is liable to be granted regular bail, however, considering that there exists a CCTV footage wherein the alleged incident has been captured, more so, since the applicant herein is clearly identifiable, and is seen hitting the applicant, the same creates suspicion in the mind of this Court, particularly, since in the complaint, admittedly, the name of the applicant herein is mentioned, and which bears the signature of the very same complainant (PW1). 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 16/07/2026 at 11:13:14 7. The aforesaid are thus not sufficient for granting regular bail at this stage, more so, since what is sought to be relied are the statements of witnesses recorded during the time of evidence before the learned Trial Court, which, in view of the pronouncement by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satish Jaggi vs State of Chattisgarh & Ors. : 2007 (11) SCC 195, are not to be taken into consideration at the time of disposing of the application for grant of regular bail. 8. Furthermore, it is not disputed that the applicant herein is also involved in two other FIRs involving serious offences as well. 9. Ergo, taking the cumulative view of the aforesaid factors, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. Resultantly, the present bail application is dismissed. 10. Needless to mention, expression of view(s) on the merits, if any, are solely for the purposes of adjudication of the present application and shall have no bearing on the overall case/trial involved. SAURABH BANERJEE, J JULY 13, 2026/Ab 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 16/07/2026 at 11:13:14