$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 1898/2026 DAVESH TYAGI .....Applicant Through: Mr. Vijay Kishor Sharma, Adv. versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Raghuinder Verma, APP with Mr. Aditya Vikram Singh, Advocate with Insp. R. Kumar, PS: Laxmi Nagar, Insp. Arun, PS: Tilak Nagar Mr. Sarthak Karol, Standing Counsel for Complainant with Ms. Neelakshi Bhadauria, Mr. Saksham Gupta, Advocates for LRs of Deceased. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE O R D E R % 20.07.2026 1. By virtue of the present application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), applicant seeks grant of regular bail in FIR No.92/2023 dated 25.02.2023 registered at PS.: Laxmi Nagar, Delhi under Sections 302/307/395/396/412/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959. 2. Status Report/ written synopsis handed over by the learned APP and the learned counsel for complainant respectively are taken on record. 3. As per FIR, on 24.02.2023, the complainant was present along with his friends at a flat situated at Vijay Block, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, whence 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 23/07/2026 at 11:36:23 the co-accused persons entered the flat armed with firearms and knives and assaulted the occupants as also robbed them of their belongings. In fact, one of them inflicted knife injuries upon the complainant and the deceased. Pursuant whereto, the present FIR came to be registered. 4. During investigation, the applicant was arrested on 25.02.2023 and one country-made pistol along with six live cartridges was recovered at his instance. Although the applicant refused to participate in the TIP proceedings before the learned Trial Court, however, he was subsequently identified by the complainant as also other eyewitnesses during the course of investigation. 5. Under these facts and circumstances, this Court has heard learned counsels for the applicant and the complainant, as well as learned APP as also gone through the documents and pleadings on record. 6. Though PW5 who has identified the applicant, and other eye witnesses except PW4 have resiled from their statements, however, it is trite law that at the stage of granting bail, the Court can only go into the question of prima facie case established for granting bail and it cannot go into the question of credibility and reliability of the witnesses as the same can only be tested during the trial. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1702 has held as under:- “20.2.5. Further, such an approach of the High Court is contrary to the judicial precedents of this court, including Satish Jaggi v. State of Chhattisgarh (supra), Kanwar Singh Meena v. State of Rajasthan, wherein, it was held that courts, while considering bail, should not assess the credibility of witnesses, as this function squarely lies within the domain of the trial Court. Thus, the impugned order of the High Court violates this principle by commenting on 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 23/07/2026 at 11:36:23 the delay in the witness statements and imputing lack of credibility at this stage.” (Emphasis Supplied) 7. Be that as it may, it is an undisputed fact that there are as many as (50) fifty witnesses still remaining to be examined. Therefore, and in view of the aforesaid legal position, giving benefit to the applicant, at this stage, is uncalled for, as it will be too early in the day. Even otherwise, discrepancies and credibility of evidence is of no aid to the applicant since this Court, whilst adjudicating a bail application, is not called for carrying out an elaborate examination, and that too of the evidentiary value. 8. The aforesaid, coupled with the facts that PW5 has identified the applicant herein; and that there is a CCTV footage recording showing the presence of the applicant at the spot; and that there has been recovery of a pistol with live cartridges at his instance; and that there are Call Detail Recordings evincing communication inter-se the applicant and the co- accused persons, are sufficient reasons for denying bail to the applicant. 9. Additionally, the overall conduct of the applicant whilst in judicial custody has been “Unsatisfactory” and he has been issued two punishment tickets according to the Nominal Roll. 10. Thus, the alleged discrepancy in the FSL Report qua the CCTV footage, the finger print of the applicant not found on the knife which is the only weapon of offence, and the applicant being a first time offender, all fade into insignificance. 11. In view thereof, the applicant also cannot claim release on bail on the ground of parity with the other co-accused persons. 12. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed. 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 23/07/2026 at 11:36:23 13. Needless to say, 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 20, 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 23/07/2026 at 11:36:23