Dismissed¶8

Mohit v. State of NCT of Delhi

Delhi HC14 Aug 2025BAIL APPLN./1849/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mohit v. State of NCT of Delhi; BAIL APPLN. 1849/2025; High Court of Delhi; Amit Mahajan, J; order dated 14.08.2025; regular bail dismissed; FIR No. 564/2020 dated 15.11.2020; Police Station Aman Vihar; Sections 302/34 IPC; murder; stabbing; applicant pinned deceased; forensic corroboration; CDR analysis; four eyewitnesses, three unexamined; witness intimidation risk; gravity of offence; custody period; expedite trial; fresh bail application after public witnesses examined.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail denied; the bail application was dismissed. The learned Trial Court was requested to expedite the recording of evidence, and the applicant was given liberty to file an application afresh after the public witnesses are examined. ¶8

Mohit Vs State of NCT of Delhi — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, arraigned under Sections 302/34 IPC in FIR No. 564/2020 (PS Aman Vihar) and in custody for a considerable period, should be admitted to regular bail in light of the gravity of the offence, the punishment that may follow conviction, the prima facie evidence, and the risk that the three yet-to-be-examined eyewitnesses may be threatened if he is released.

¶7

Court's answer

The possibility of the witnesses being threatened in the event of the applicant's release could not be ruled out, since three of the four eyewitnesses remained unexamined.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

Despite the applicant's considerable period in custody, the Court found it not apposite to admit him to bail, weighing the gravity of the offence, the punishment that may be awarded after conviction, and the prima facie evidence.

¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Amit Mahajan, J) dismissed a regular-bail application by Mohit, an accused in FIR No. 564/2020 (PS Aman Vihar, dated 15.11.2020) under Sections 302/34 IPC, wherein he was alleged to have pinned the deceased down while co-accused stabbed him to death. Although the applicant had spent considerable time in custody, the Court refused bail on account of the gravity of the offence, the punishment that may be awarded after conviction, the prima facie evidence — including forensic corroboration of his presence among the attackers and supporting CDR analysis noted in the Status Report — and the risk that the three of four eyewitnesses still unexamined could be threatened if he were released. The Trial Court was requested to expedite recording of evidence, and the applicant was left free to apply afresh once the public witnesses are examined.

¶1

$~8

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

+ BAIL APPLN. 1849/2025

¶4

MOHIT .....Applicant Through: Mr. Nitin Saluja, Adv. (through VC) Mr. Karan Singh, Adv.

¶5

versus

¶6

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP for the State with SI Ashish Garg, PS Aman Vihar.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN O R D E R

¶8

% 14.08.2025

¶9

The present application has been filed by the applicant seeking regular bail in FIR No. 564/2020 dated 15.11.2020, registered at Police Station Aman Vihar, for offences under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘ IPC ’).

¶10

Serious allegations have been made against the applicant. It is the case of the prosecution that three persons had assaulted the victim and stabbed him to death.

¶11

It is alleged that the applicant pinned the deceased down and the other co-accused persons stabbed him, which led to his death.

¶12

The Status Report indicates that the applicant’s presence as being part of the attackers, has been forensically corroborated. The presence of the applicant is also supported by the CDR analysis.

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

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 20/08/2025 at 12:10:08

¶15

There are four eye-witnesses who witnessed the alleged incident, out of whom, one has been examined and three eyewitnesses are yet to be examined.

¶16

Therefore, the possibility of the witnesses being threatened in the event of release of the applicant, cannot be ruled out. 7. In view of the above, even though the applicant has spent considerable period of time in custody, looking at the gravity of the offence, the punishment that may be awarded after the conviction and the prima facie evidence, this Court does not consider it apposite to admit the applicant on bail.

¶17

The present bail application is, therefore, dismissed.

¶18

The learned Trial Court is requested to expedite the recording of evidence.

¶19

The applicant is at liberty to file an application afresh after the public witnesses are examined.

¶20

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

¶21

AUGUST 14, 2025 ‘KDK’

¶22

This is a digitally signed order.

¶23

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 20/08/2025 at 12:10:08

Mohit v. State of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohit v. State of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Religare Finvest Ltd. Vs State

Teson Electronics (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sh. Khema Nand Sharma

Sh. Kanchhid Lal Vs the State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.

Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Ankit Bhanot Vs Anil Gupta

Chandrakant & Ors. Vs Indu Tanwar