$~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 1699/2026 SAT PRAKASH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashish U. and Mr. Pradeep Mishra, Advocates. versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for State with SI Vinay. Mr. Gaurav Bisht, Advocate for complainant. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 21.07.2026 1. The instant application has been filed on behalf of the applicant under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”] (erstwhile Section 439 CR.P.C) read with Section 528 of the BNSS (erstwhile Section 482 CR.P.C) seeking grant of regular bail in relation to FIR No. 0431/2025 registered at Police Station R.K. Puram New Delhi qua the offence punishable under Section under Section 109(1)/3(5)/79 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [“BNS”]. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. He also submits that the applicant has been incarcerated since 11.12.2025. It is urged that the charges have been framed and three witnesses have already 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 11:36:37 been examined, who have not supported the prosecution’s case. 3. The State has filed the objections. However, Mr. Gaurav Bisht, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant/ victims submits that the dispute giving rise to the present FIR had arisen on account of some misunderstanding, and as of now, he does not have any objection if the applicant is granted regular bail. The said statement made on behalf of the complainant by the learned counsel is taken on record. 4. Learned APP for the State, however, opposes the instant bail application filed by the applicant for grant of regular bail on the ground that the injuries were serious in nature. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsels for the parties and also perused the record. 6. The FIR in question was registered on the complaint of one Suresh Bhagat. The complainant alleged that on 09.12.2025, the applicant/accused, while under the influence of alcohol, misbehaved with a lady namely Maya near his shop. When the said act was objected to by the complainant's son Rohit and one Mohan, a quarrel ensued. 7. It is further alleged that on the following day, i.e., 10.12.2025, the applicant returned to the spot along with his son Lakshaya with an intention to take revenge. During the incident, the son of the applicant allegedly took out a knife from his jacket and stabbed Sumit on his left upper abdomen and Rohit on the left side of his back, while the applicant is alleged to have caught hold of Rohit and exhorted his son to kill them. 8. It is also relevant to note that the applicant as well as his son is in jail. Prima facie, the specific allegation of inflicting the stab injuries is attributed to the son of 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 23/07/2026 at 11:36:37 9. The Court has also perused the evidence of PW-1/Suresh Bhagat i.e. the complainant, PW-2/Sumit and PW-3/Rohit. A careful perusal of the said testimonies would indicate that they have not fully supported the prosecution’s case. 10. At the stage of consideration of bail, the Court is not required to undertake a meticulous appreciation of the evidence or record any conclusive findings on the merits of the prosecution case. The Court is only required to examine whether, having regard to the nature of allegations, the material collected during investigation, the stage of the trial and the attendant circumstances, the continued incarceration of the applicant is warranted. 11. The aforesaid position of law stand reiterated by the Supreme Court in Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar1, the relevant paragraph is extracted as under: - “12. The determination of whether a case is fit for the grant of bail involves the balancing of numerous factors, among which the nature of the offence, the severity of the punishment and a prima facie view of the involvement of the accused are important. No straitjacket formula exists for courts to assess an application for the grant or rejection of bail. At the stage of assessing whether a case is fit for the grant of bail, the court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the evidence on record to establish beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime by the accused. That is a matter for trial. However, the Court is required to examine whether there is a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence and on a balance of the considerations involved, the continued custody of the accused subserves the purpose of the criminal justice system.” 12. The Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI,2 has further observed that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused during trial 1 (2020) 2 SCC 118 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 11:36:37 and that pre-trial detention should not assume a punitive character. “21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.” 13. In the facts of the present case, the investigation already stands concluded. The applicant has remained in custody since 11.12.2025. The material witnesses, including the complainant and the injured witnesses, have already been examined before the Trial Court and have not fully supported the prosecution case. Further, the nominal roll is stated to be satisfactory with no previous criminal antecedents being brought to the notice of this Court. 14. The complainant has admitted before this Court that he does not have any objection to the grant of the bail, since the present dispute arose out of a misunderstanding. 15. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in continued judicial custody during the pendency of the trial. 16. Bearing in mind the overall facts and circumstances, the applicant is directed to be released on regular bail subject to such conditions as may be imposed by the concerned Trial Court. 17. Nothing stated, hereinabove, shall however be construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the case. 2 (2012) 1 SCC 40 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 11:36:37 18. In light of these observations, the application stands disposed of. 19. Copy of the order to be forwarded to the concerned Jail Superintendent for necessary compliance. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JULY 21, 2026 Nc 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 11:36:37