$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010192562026 + BAIL APPLN. 1719/2026 RAMAVTAR JANGIR .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Suruchi Mittal, Mr. Abhishek Gautam and Mr. Mohit Singhal, Advs. versus STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Manoj Pant, APP. Insp. Binod Kumar, PS Vasant Kunj, North, Delhi Insp. Kishore Kumar, PS Kalindi Kunj CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R % 01.09.2026 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNSS’), seeking grant of regular bail in FIR No. 106/2025, registered at Police Station Vasant Kunj North, for offences punishable under Sections 103(1) and 238(A) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNS’). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, as per the FIR, the alleged period of occurrence is stated to be from 22.11.2024 to 05.03.2025. It is submitted that the dead body remained unidentified for a considerable period and even till date, the identity of the deceased has not been conclusively established. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner 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 05/09/2026 at 09:44:17 had returned from Saudi Arabia on 04.03.2025 and was subsequently arrested from his native place in Churu, Rajasthan, on 06.03.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is no material on record connecting the petitioner with the alleged incident and that the prosecution case is based entirely on circumstantial evidence. It is submitted that even the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution do not point towards the guilt of the petitioner. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that the petitioner be released on bail. 5. Per contra, learned APP for the State opposes the present petition and submits that the petitioner had taken the deceased, a female, along with him and that the Call Detail Records reveal that the petitioner was in constant touch with the deceased from 19.11.2024 to 28.11.2024. It is further submitted that the tower locations of the mobile phones of the petitioner and the deceased were found to be the same. Thereafter, the petitioner left for Saudi Arabia and returned to India only on 04.03.2025, following which he was apprehended. 6. He further submits that even the identity card of the deceased has been recovered from the spot and also the mobile phone of the deceased was used by the petitioner by putting the sim card of his wife. He further submits that all the circumstantial evidence collected, points towards the guilt of the petitioner and no ground for bail is made out. 7. The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 8. The petitioner is facing trial for offences punishable under Sections 103(1) and 238(A) of the BNS. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 06.03.2025. As per the case of the prosecution, the petitioner and 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 05/09/2026 at 09:44:17 deceased had taken a room on rent at Mahipalpur. Upon non-payment of rent and in the circumstances leading to suspicion, the room was opened by the caretaker on the instructions of the owner, whereupon a dead body, kept inside a bag/suitcase, was recovered. The prosecution relies, inter alia, upon the Call Detail Records and location details of the petitioner and the deceased, the subsequent conduct of the petitioner and the alleged use of the mobile phone of the deceased. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner strongly disputes the case of the prosecution and submits that the identity of the dead body has not been conclusively established. 10. Keeping in view the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material placed on record and the fact that the petitioner is facing trial for a heinous offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. 11. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s), disposed of. 12. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 1, 2026/b/P 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 05/09/2026 at 09:44:17