Regular bail sought in a Section 302 IPC murder case based on CCTV footage and FSL evidence; the key eyewitness turned hostile at trial. The court held that prima facie electronic and forensic material linked the applicant to the brutal assault and refused bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~74
INDAL KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Gaurav Tyagi, Mr. Deepanshu Baisla, Mr. Jatin Nagar and Mr. Vaibhav Tyagi, Advocates.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
O R D E R % 11.12.2025
2.1. On 22nd August, 2023, SI Dimpy Gulia received DD No. 16A and proceeded to the vicinity of Supreme Model School, Uttam Nagar, Delhi. As the place of incident could not be identified and no eyewitness was found
1 “BNSS”
2 “CrPC”
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 15/12/2025 at 11:17:29
present, he continued the enquiry and reached DDU Hospital, where MLC No. 7468/23 of an unidentified male, later identified as Sanjeev Kumar, was obtained. In MLC, the doctor recorded that the injured had been brought by the police in a drowsy state with swelling in the right orbital region, the occipital region, as well swelling and laceration wounds on the node bridge, with nature of injury as blunt/grievous. On 23rd August, 2023, the deceased’s brother Raju lodged a missing report. Later, by DD No. 151A, the police received intimation of the injured man’s death at Safdarjung Hospital, whereupon Raju identified the body as that of his missing brother Sanjeev Kumar.
2.2. On further inquiry in the locality, the police met complainant Muskan, who stated that at about 1:00-1:15 AM on 22nd August, 2023, she had witnessed the Applicant, whom she knew from before, quarrelling with a man at a T-point of the street near her residence. She stated that during the altercation, the Applicant pushed the elderly man, causing him to fall and thereafter began kicking him repeatedly. The Applicant delivered forceful kicks and blows to the victim’s head, including repeatedly smashing his head against the road surface, leaving him unconscious. Her husband Deen Mohammad checked the victim, and upon failing to locate nearby police, she made a PCR call, following which the victim was taken to the hospital. 2.3. The police inspected the spot and obtained CCTV footage from both government-installed cameras and a private DVR at Plot Nos. 5-6-7, which captured the incident between 1:00-1:05 AM. The footage depicts the Applicant pushing the deceased, assaulting him with kicks, and subsequently banging his head on the road. The DVR was seized, sealed, and sent to FSL.
3 “IPC”
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 15/12/2025 at 11:17:29
A crime team inspected the site, a scaled site plan was prepared, and statements of witnesses including Deen Mohammad were recorded. On 24th August, 2023, a post-mortem was conducted at Safdarjung Hospital, opining the cause of death as cranio-cerebral damage consequent to blunt force impact, with all injuries being ante-mortem. Exhibits, biological samples, and electronic evidence were sent to FSL for examination.
2.4. The Applicant was arrested on 12th September, 2023 and is stated to have made a disclosure that the deceased had abused his mother and sister, and that he had, therefore, assaulted him. On his pointing out, the place of incident was identified, and the clothes allegedly worn by him during the incident were recovered. On completion of investigation, a chargesheet has been filed, whereby Applicant has been implicated for the offence under 302 IPC. Further, the supplementary chargesheet records that FSL has retrieved CCTV footage from 00:00:01 hrs to 02:00:00 hrs on 22nd August, 2023, and found no evidence of tampering or alteration, confirming its admissibility under Section 65-B IEA. The FSL report corroborates the presence of the Applicant at the scene of the incident.
3.1. The prosecution case is false, frivolous, and concocted. There is no direct evidence linking the Applicant to the alleged offence, and the case rests entirely on circumstantial material, which does not form a complete chain. The alleged CCTV footage is blurred, with the face of the accused not visible. Even the FSL Physics Division report records only a resemblance and not an identical match , noting that out of 77 photographs and two audiovideo files, only one image showed resemblance. The other FSL reports
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 15/12/2025 at 11:17:29
have not yielded any incriminating material against the Applicant.
3.2. The eyewitness Muskan (PW-1), on whose account the prosecution heavily relies, has completely resiled from her earlier statement. In her Examination-in-Chief and Cross-Examination, she categorically stated that she did not witness any incident, did not know the Applicant, did not identify him, and denied seeing him quarrelling with or assaulting any elderly man. All material witnesses who have since been examined have not supported the prosecution version, thereby breaking the chain of circumstances.
3.3. The Applicant was 23 years old at the time of alleged incident and has already spent more than two years in judicial custody. Given the number of witnesses cited, the conclusion of trial will take considerable time. Thus, continued incarceration, despite the presumption of innocence, would amount to undue pre-trial punishment.
3.4. The Applicant is the sole breadwinner of his family, has no criminal antecedents, and has never been involved in any criminal activity. After completion of investigation and filing of the chargesheet, further detention serves no purpose and violates his right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
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 15/12/2025 at 11:17:29
Applicant absconding or evading the legal process if released on bail.
“11. The grant of bail is a discretionary relief which necessarily means that such discretion would have to be exercised in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. The grant of bail is dependent upon contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the Court and may vary from case to case. There cannot be any exhaustive parameters set out for considering the application for grant of bail. However, it can be noted that:
11.1. While granting bail the court has to keep in mind factors such as the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment, if the accusations entail a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations.
11.2. Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant should also weigh with the Court in the matter of grant of bail.
11.3. While it is not accepted to have the entire evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but there ought to be always a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge.
11.4. Frivolity of prosecution should always be considered and it is only the clement of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to have an order of bail.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
4 2023 INSC 761.
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 15/12/2025 at 11:17:29
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 15/12/2025 at 11:17:29
SANJEEV NARULA, J
DECEMBER 11, 2025/MK
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 15/12/2025 at 11:17:29
1 issue framed by the court
Whether regular bail should be granted to the applicant charged under Section 302 IPC where CCTV footage and FSL report prima facie link him to the assault and the principal eyewitness has turned host
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar alias Deepu alias Deepak and AnrRelied on¶5
2023 INSC 761 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 4 enactments
Indal Kumar
State NCT of Delhi
Sanjeev Narula
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
