Vijay Kumar @Bittu Vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec4 GIRISH 5569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d155 KATHPALIA 70996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e2 6fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.05.14 05:23:28 +05'30'

¶17

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL YADAV Signing Da te:1 4.05.2026 17:28:50

¶18

Broadly speaking, prosecution case is as follows. The case originates from a blind FIR recorded on telephonic information that in the drain, one dead body was found. The local police retrieved the dead body with the help of professional divers and the same was found highly putrefied and decomposed. From pocket of the deceased, one paper slip was recovered on which 2-3 mobile phone numbers and one name of Twinkle and one name of Krishan Kumar were found handwritten. Along with that, from pocket of the deceased one currency note of Rs.500/- also was recovered. After ascertaining the identity of the deceased, her infant child was handed over to one NGO for safe custody. After some time, in the course of investigation, a secret information was received and on the basis thereof the present accused/applicant and co-accused Ajay were arrested on 02.10.2023 along with the car in which they allegedly killed the deceased.

¶19

Learned counsel for accused/applicant submits that he is in jail since 02.10.2023, without any legally admissible evidence. It is also submitted that none of the prosecution witnesses has supported prosecution case during trial, so there is no reason to deny liberty to the accused/applicant.

¶20

On the other hand, learned APP assisted by the IO explains that the accused/applicant had intimate relations with the deceased, and the infant was born to them but the accused/applicant did not want to get married, so he killed the deceased by strangulating her in his car. It is submitted that by way of circumstantial evidence, there is statement of one puncture repairer,

¶21

BAIL APPLN. 1326/2026 Page 2 of 4 pages

¶22

GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.05.14 05:23:18 +05'30'

¶23

Signature Not Verified

¶24

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL YADAV Signing Da te:1 4.05.2026 17:28:50

¶25

who lastly saw the deceased in the company of the accused/applicant at 12:30am on 29.09.2023 and thereafter, at 02:00pm on 30.09.2023, dead body of the deceased was recovered. In response to a specific query, the IO also admits that no chance prints could be found by the Crime Team in the car in which the deceased was allegedly strangulated.

¶26

Without analysing as to whether in view of the above mentioned time gap between 12:30am of 29.09.2023 and 02:00pm on 30.09.2023, the allegation that the deceased was lastly seen with the accused can be accepted as an evidence of last seen, suffice it to record that admittedly even that puncture repairer has not supported the prosecution during trial to establish that the deceased was seen with the accused/applicant at 12:30am on 29.09.2023.

¶27

I find substance in the submission of learned counsel for accused/applicant that it is difficult to believe that the paper in the pocket of the deceased would remain intact across two days and not get dissolved in the water.

¶28

I also find force in the submission that presently there is no evidence to connect the accused/applicant with the alleged murder except the so-called “secret information” which came up when the investigator was clueless about the killer. However, I must add a cautious rider that these are only prima facie findings, and the ultimate decision shall be arrived at by the

¶29

BAIL APPLN. 1326/2026 Page 3 of 4 pages

¶30

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afe GIRISH c45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, KATHPALIA postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff80 1e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.05.14 05:23:08 +05'30'

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL YADAV Signing Da te:1 4.05.2026 17:28:50

¶33

trial court on the basis of evidence adduced during trial, independent of the above observations.

¶34

In view of the aforesaid, I find no reason to further deny liberty to the accused/applicant. The bail application is allowed and the accused/applicant is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court. Pending application stands disposed of.

¶35

Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for being informed to the accused/applicant.

¶36

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4a
GIRISH fec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626ca
cca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID -
7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
KATHPALIA serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c48796
5ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.05.14 05:22:54 +05'30'

¶37

GIRISH KATHPALIA (JUDGE)

¶38

MAY 14, 2026/ ry

¶39

BAIL APPLN. 1326/2026

¶40

Page 4 of 4 pages

¶41

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL YADAV Signing Da te:1 4.05.2026 17:28:50

Vijay Kumar @Bittu v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar @Bittu v. State Govt 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

Rohina Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Sanjay Bulaki Borad Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Sonu Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Harinder Dogra Vs State of (Nct) Delhi & Anr.

M/S. Kalptaru Fincap Limited Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Abhishek Saxena Vs State NCT of Delhi & Anr.