$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 579/2026 SAZID KHAN @ MALIK KABADI .....Applicant Through: Mr. Rohit Singh, Mr. Sarthak Sisodia and Mr. Ketan Goyal, Advs. versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) THROUGH SHO, P.S. RANHOLA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Satish Kumar, APP for State 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 regular bail in FIR No.491/2025 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, the case of the prosecution is that he, 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. The applicant is stated to have been identified from the CCTV footage on the basis of his distinguishable heavy build, wherein he has been seen carrying a ‘danda’. Moreover, the applicant was subsequently identified by the brother of the victim. 3. Learned counsel for applicant praying for regular bail submits that (i) the applicant is a first time offender and is not named in the present FIR as also there has been no recovery effected from him; (ii) the applicant 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 11:12:53 cannot be identified from the alleged CCTV footage as the person alleged therein has covered his face with a white gamchha; (iii) the alleged incident occurred due to a sudden fight without premeditation on either side; (iv) the brother of the complainant (PW5) who identified the applicant has turned hostile and denied any such identification in his evidence; (v) the complainant and other eye witnesses in their evidence have altogether denied the occurrence of the incident; (vi) the applicant is under incarceration for around 11 months and all the material witnesses have already been examined leaving aside only the formal witnesses; (vii) and lastly two of the co-accused have already been granted bail. 4. Lastly, before concluding the learned counsel for the applicant relies upon the statement of complainant-PW1, injured-PW4 and the eyewitnesses-PW5 and PW6, which are taken on record, to submit that they all have turned hostile before the learned Trial Court. 5. Per contra, learned APP for the state submits that (i) the applicant is clearly identified in the CCTV based on his distinct heavy build; and (ii) the applicant herein is also involved in another FIR involving serious offences under Sections 354/354-A/376/506/34 IPC and Section 4/7 of the POCSO Act and had committed the present offence while he was on bail. 6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the State and perused the documents and materials on record. 7. Though it is primarily the case of the applicant that since as many as four witnesses, being the complainant-PW1, injured-PW4 and the 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 which records 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 11:12:53 happening of the alleged incident and the applicant can be identified therefrom on the basis of his distinguishable heavy build, wherein he can be seen carrying a ‘danda’, the same creates a doubt in the mind of this Court as it gives rise to some suspicion. It is also strange that the complaint and arrest memo of the present applicant bears signature of the complainant-PW1 and one of the eye-witnesses-PW5 as well. In view thereof, there is indeed something more than what meets the eye. 8. 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. 9. Also, it is not disputed that the applicant is also involved in another FIR involving serious offences under Sections 354/354-A/376/506/34 IPC and Section 4/7 of the POCSO Act. 10. Ergo, taking cumulative view of the aforesaid factors, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. Resultantly, the present bail application is dismissed. 11. 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/bh 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 11:12:53