$~12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 2410/2026 SAHIL .....Applicant Through: Mr. Romil Pathak, Mr. Pranav Kr. and Mr. Amit Kumar, Advs. versus THE STATE GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for the State with Mr. Aditya Vikram Singh, Adv. SI- Rajat Khajwal, PS: Ranhola CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE O R D E R % 13.07.2026 1. By virtue of the present bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, 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)/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. Moreover, at his instance, the weapon of the offence being button actuated knife was recovered. 3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that (i) the applicant is a young boy of 22 years old innocent person who has been falsely 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 11:13:23 implicated in the present case; (ii) the complainant-PW1 and injured-PW4 in their evidence does not support the case of the prosecution (iii) even in the FIR, there is no allegation of the applicant using the recovered knife, rather the allegation against him is that of beating by stick, which also cannot be substantiated; (iv) the applicant is under incarceration since 03.08.2025 and all the material witnesses have already been examined leaving aside only the formal witnesses; (v) as per Nominal Roll, the conduct of applicant is ‘Satisfactory’; (vi) and lastly two of the co-accused have already been granted bail. 4. Per contra, learned APP has handed over the Status Report, which is taken on record. Relying thereon, he submits that (i) the applicant was one of the main conspirators against whom, it has been specifically mentioned in the FIR that he had continuously hit the hand of the victim with ‘danda’; (ii) the weapon of offence i.e., button actuated knife was recovered at the instance of the applicant; (iii) the applicant is clearly seen hitting the applicant in the CCTV; and lastly (iv) the applicant herein is also involved in two other FIRs involving serious offences like attempt to murder. 5. This Court has heard learned counsel for applicant and learned APP and perused the documents and materials on record. 6. Facts herein disclose that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature inasmuch as his role has been specifically carved out in the FIR as a person who had continuously caused injury by hitting him with ‘danda’. Moreover, the alleged weapon of the offence i.e., button actuated knife has been recovered at his instance. Under these circumstances, even though it is the case of the applicant that since 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 16/07/2026 at 11:13:23 complainant (PW1) and injured (PW4) have 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 clearly showing the alleged incident, the same creates a doubt in the mind of this Court as it gives rise to some suspicion. In view thereof, there indeed is something more than what meets the eye. 7. The aforesaid are thus not sufficient for granting regular bail at this stage when the proceedings before the learned Trial Court are listed for prosecution evidence, more so, since what is sought to be relied are the statements of witnesses recorded during evidence before the learned Trial Court, which as held 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. Moreover, it is not disputed that the applicant is also involved in two other FIR involving serious offences. 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/So 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 11:13:23