BAIL APPLN. 3970/2026 Page 1 of 7 $~12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010451602026 + BAIL APPLN. 3970/2026 & CRL.M.A. 29457-29459/2026 VIKRAM .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashish Kumar Upadhyay, Ms. Maitri Goel, Mr. Varun Ranjan, Advocates. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Tarang Srivastav, APP for the State CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 28.09.2026 1. The present application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeks regular bail in FIR No. 02/2026 registered at PS Hauz Khas for offences under Sections 103(1)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 20231. The Applicant was arrested on 3rd January, 2026 and has, therefore, remained in custody for nearly nine months. His earlier application for regular bail was dismissed by the Sessions Court on 6th July, 2026. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that during the intervening night of 1st/2nd January, 2026, a person suspected of having entered an under- construction building for committing theft was apprehended by the workers 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 30/09/2026 at 11:04:36 BAIL APPLN. 3970/2026 Page 2 of 7 present there. He was taken to the roof, his hands and feet were tied, and he was thereafter assaulted. He was subsequently found lying unresponsive behind the building and was declared brought dead. 3. Counsel for the Applicant questions the role attributed to his client. He submits that, in Ravish Kumar Gupta’s earliest account, Phool Chand and Shivam were said to be holding the hands of the deceased, while others were described as having assaulted him. The Applicant, however, was only stated to be carrying a wooden danda; no blow or injury was attributed to him. Counsel therefore contends that the later allegation that the Applicant assaulted the deceased with the danda is an improvement and cannot, at this stage, establish his participation. 4. Counsel further submits that the occurrence is alleged to have involved a large number of labourers and workers and that the prosecution has not identified any particular injury as having been caused by the Applicant. His mere presence amongst several persons, it is argued, cannot by itself attract Section 3(5) of the BNS. The prosecution evidence concerning identification and the precise role of each accused would have to be tested at trial. The petition also stresses that investigation is complete, the charge-sheet has been filed, no further custodial interrogation is required, and continued detention can no longer serve an investigative purpose. The Applicant is stated to be 22 years old, without criminal antecedents, and having roots in society. There are 31 prosecution witnesses cited in the charge-sheet and, therefore, it is urged that the trial is unlikely to conclude shortly. 1 “BNSS” 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 30/09/2026 at 11:04:36 BAIL APPLN. 3970/2026 Page 3 of 7 5. Reliance is also placed upon Sanjay Chandra v. CBI2, to submit that pre-trial detention cannot assume a punitive character and that the Applicant’s liberty must be considered bearing in mind the presumption of innocence. 6. The State opposes the application. It submits that the case against the Applicant is not one of mere presence. According to the prosecution, a wooden danda used in the occurrence was recovered at his instance. More importantly, Ravish Kumar Gupta has since entered the witness box as PW- 1 and has specifically stated that the Applicant was hitting the deceased with a danda. The witness has identified the accused persons in Court and has already been subjected to cross-examination, including on behalf of the Applicant. 7. Before turning to the facts, the approach required at the stage of bail bears some emphasis. The Court is not to conduct a trial within the bail proceedings. Equally, in a case involving a serious offence, it cannot confine itself to general considerations of liberty while leaving the material against the accused unexamined. In State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi3, the Supreme Court identified, amongst the relevant considerations, the existence of prima facie or reasonable grounds connecting the accused with the offence, the nature and gravity of the charge, severity of the possible punishment, likelihood of absconding, possibility of interference with witnesses, and danger of justice being thwarted. The Court also reiterated that although a detailed examination of evidence is to be avoided, a brief examination of the material to ascertain whether a prima facie case exists is 2 (2012) 1 SCC 40 3 (2005) 8 SCC 21 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 30/09/2026 at 11:04:36 BAIL APPLN. 3970/2026 Page 4 of 7 necessary. 8. The same balance is explained in Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia4. The Supreme Court held that, at the stage of considering bail, the Court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the evidence on record to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, that being a matter for trial. The Court is, however, 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, whether his continued custody serves the purpose of the criminal justice system. In Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli)5, while relying on Chaman Lal v. State of UP6, the Supreme Court noted that although a detailed evaluation of the facts and an exhaustive examination of the merits are to be avoided at the stage of bail, the Court must undertake a judicial assessment of the material on record and record reasons, brief though they may be, for granting or refusing bail.7 These principles have again been reiterated in Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra @ Monu8. 9. It is in this framework that the omission in the earliest account must be considered. The Applicant was then described as carrying a wooden danda, but no assault was attributed to him. The omission is material and cannot be brushed aside. At the same time, its effect on the reliability of the later attribution is not a question that can be finally determined at the stage of bail. The present enquiry is confined to whether, upon a cumulative view of 4 (2020) 2 SCC 118 5 (2021) 6 SCC 230 6 (2004) 7 SCC 525 7 See Also: Sonu v. Sonu Yadav (2021) 15 SCC 228 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 30/09/2026 at 11:04:36 BAIL APPLN. 3970/2026 Page 5 of 7 the material now before the Court, there are reasonable grounds to connect the Applicant with the offence. 10. The material now before the Court goes beyond an allegation of the Applicant merely standing amongst a group of labourers with a stick in his hand. PW-1 has specifically deposed that the Applicant was hitting the deceased with a danda. The defence has cross-examined the witness. During cross-examination, questions were also put to him regarding his familiarity with the accused persons and the circumstances in which their names came to be known to him; the witness maintained that he knew their names before giving his statement to the police and denied the suggestion that the accused had been named at the instance of the supervisor or the police. Whether the difference between the earliest version and the deposition in Court constitutes an improvement of such significance as to affect the reliability of PW-1 is a matter which plainly requires appreciation of evidence. It cannot appropriately be decided in a bail proceeding. 11. The submission that no particular injury has been attributed to the Applicant also has to be viewed in the setting of the prosecution case. The allegation is of a collective assault upon a person whose hands and feet had first been tied. The post-mortem records as many as 29 external and internal injuries, including a fracture of the skull and two fractures of the ribs, with the cause of death stated to be ante-mortem polytrauma resulting from blunt- force impact. At this stage, where there is ocular material attributing blows with a danda to the Applicant and the prosecution invokes Section 3(5) of the BNS, the Court cannot insist upon an injury-by-injury allocation amongst the several accused before the Applicant’s participation may even 8 (2022) 9 SCC 321 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 30/09/2026 at 11:04:36 BAIL APPLN. 3970/2026 Page 6 of 7 be considered. Which injury was caused by whom, whether common intention stood formed, and whether the Applicant can ultimately be held liable for the death are all questions for trial. For present purposes, the material does disclose a specific allegation of participation in the assault. 12. The recovery of the wooden danda stated to have been made at the Applicant’s instance is an additional circumstance relied upon by the prosecution. The Court does not place any conclusive weight upon the recovery at this stage; its admissibility, connection with the occurrence and evidentiary worth will also have to be tested during trial. It nevertheless forms part of the material which cannot altogether be excluded from the prima facie assessment. 13. The Court has considered the circumstances favouring the Applicant. He has no stated criminal antecedents; the investigation qua him is complete; the charge-sheet has been filed; and his further custodial interrogation is not required. He has also remained in custody for nearly nine months. 14. These circumstances carry weight, but must be assessed alongside the nature of the accusation. They do not, however, outweigh the material indicating the Applicant’s prima facie participation in the assault. PW-1 has attributed danda blows to the Applicant in his deposition, and the medical evidence records multiple injuries caused by blunt-force impact. In these circumstances, continued custody cannot presently be regarded as punitive merely because the Applicant has spent nine months in custody. 15. The Court is accordingly not persuaded to release the Applicant on bail at this stage. The application is dismissed. 16. In view of the period already spent in custody, the Trial Court is 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 30/09/2026 at 11:04:36 BAIL APPLN. 3970/2026 Page 7 of 7 requested to give due priority to the matter and to record the evidence of the material prosecution witnesses without avoidable adjournments. 17. The observations in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall not influence the Trial Court’s assessment of the evidence. SANJEEV NARULA, J SEPTEMBER 28, 2026/ab 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 30/09/2026 at 11:04:36