Dismissed¶8

Bhanu@Kunal v. State of Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Delhi HC9 Jul 2026BAIL APPLN./1745/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application dismissed; regular bail refused; murder; Section 302 IPC; Section 120B IPC conspiracy; Section 34 IPC common intention; Arms Act Sections 25, 27, 29; parity with co-accused rejected; CCTV footage timeline; clock discrepancy 02 hours 26 minutes; Child in Conflict with Law (CCL); juvenile; knife; stabbing; FIR No. 587/2023; PS Nabi Karim; Multani Dhanda, Paharganj; deceased Amit @ Bewda; co-accused Neeraj; co-accused Akash; HC Dinesk patrol witness; Delhi High Court; Justice Girish Kathpalia; BAIL APPLN. 1745/2026; seriousness of offence; observations not to affect trial.

What did the court decide?

Parity with co-accused Neeraj is rejected: going by the CCTV timeline, the role of the accused/applicant is far more serious than that of co-accused Neeraj, so it is not a case of parity. ¶7

Bhanu@Kunal Vs State of Govt. of NCT of Delhi — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the accused/applicant Bhanu@Kunal is entitled to regular bail in case FIR No. 587/2023, PS Nabi Karim, for offences under Section 302/120B/34 IPC and Section 25/27/29 of Arms Act. +1 more

¶1

Court's answer

Considering the narrated circumstances and the seriousness of the offence, this is not a fit case to grant bail; the bail application is dismissed.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

Parity with co-accused Neeraj is rejected: going by the CCTV timeline, the role of the accused/applicant is far more serious than that of co-accused Neeraj, so it is not a case of parity.

¶7

Key takeaways

As observed in the bail order dated 28.01.2026, there is no material to show that Neeraj, when disclosing the deceased's location, was aware that the applicant would convey the information to the CCL; even the allegation that Neeraj informed the applicant of the location has no material on record.ratio¶6
None of the observations in this order shall be read against either side by the trial court; the final decision of the trial shall rest on evidence adduced in court.obiter¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Girish Kathpalia, J.) dismisses the regular bail application of Bhanu@Kunal in FIR No. 587/2023, PS Nabi Karim, for offences under Section 302/120B/34 IPC and Section 25/27/29 of Arms Act, arising from the multiple-stab-wound killing of Amit @ Bewda in Gali No.10, Multani Dhanda, Paharganj on the night intervening 26/27.10.2023, in which a Child in Conflict with Law (CCL) and co-accused Akash allegedly stabbed the deceased. The claim of parity with co-accused Neeraj (released on bail vide order dated 28.01.2026) was rejected: CCTV footage, played in court for the first time during these arguments (its clock faulty, faster by 02 hours 26 minutes), showed continuity of the applicant's involvement with the CCL and Akash — the applicant entered the lane with Akash, called the CCL back, and was visible when the stabbing began — making his role 'far more serious' than Neeraj's. The Court also noted there was no material showing Neeraj knew the applicant would pass the deceased's location to the CCL. All observations were expressly directed not to be read against either side by the trial court.

¶1

$~3

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 09.07.2026

¶4

- BAIL APPLN. 1745/2026

¶5

BHANU@KUNAL .....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Shiv Kumar Gautam and Ms. Niharika Kashyap, Advocates.

¶7

versus

¶8

STATE OF GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent

¶9

Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State with Inspector Murtuja Khan, PS Nabi Karim.

¶10

Mr. Sarthak Karol and Mrs. Neelakshi Bhadauria, Advocates for family of deceased.

¶11

CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

¶12

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

¶13

The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 587/2023 of PS Nabi Karim for offence under Section 302/120B/34 IPC and Section 25/27/29 of Arms Act.

¶14

In furtherance of last order, status report was filed. Today I have heard learned counsel for accused/applicant and learned APP for State assisted by Investigating Officer/Inspector Murtuja Khan. I have also heard learned counsel for family of the deceased.

¶15

BAIL APPLN. 1745/2026

¶16

Page 1 of 4 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, GIRISH 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80c KATHPALIA bd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.07.09 17:05:29 +05'30'

¶17

Signature Not Verified

¶18

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL YADAV Signing Da te:0 9.07.2026 17:19:19

¶19

Broadly speaking, circumstances relevant for the present purposes are as follows. On the night intervening 26.10.2023 and 27.10.2023, at about 01:45am, while patrolling in the area, HC Dinesh of PS Nabi Karim saw a Child in Conflict with Law (CCL) running from Gali No.10, Multani Dhanda, Paharganj towards Choti Hatti, carrying a knife in his hand. On seeing HC Dinesh, the CCL fled and could not be located. When HC Dinesh reached Gali No.10, Multani Dhanda, he saw a male dead body lying on the track of a shrine. The dead body bore multiple stab wounds on face, neck, chest, stomach and lower part of the body. HC Dinesh called up the Duty Officer of PS Nabi Karim, who informed that one CCL had appeared in the police station and had presented a knife, confessing that he and his friend Akash had murdered Amit @ Bewda with that knife. Hands of the CCL were stained with blood, so he was detained in the police station. Under these circumstances, the FIR was registered and investigation was carried out. The role of the present accused/applicant that came to light during investigation is that he was informed about location of the deceased by coaccused Neeraj, and the accused/applicant accompanied the CCL and coaccused to the place where the alleged stabbing took place.

¶20

Learned counsel for accused/applicant claims parity on the ground that co-accused Neeraj was released on bail by this court vide order dated 28.01.2026. It is submitted by learned counsel that while granting bail to Neeraj, this court expressed doubts about truthfulness of the prosecution case, observing that if killing of the deceased was carried out by way of such

¶21

BAIL APPLN. 1745/2026

¶22

Page 2 of 4 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, GIRISH 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80c KATHPALIA bd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.07.09 17:05:41 +05'30'

¶23

Signature Not Verified

¶24

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL YADAV Signing Da te:0 9.07.2026 17:19:19

¶25

planned conspiracy, why would the CCL on his own go to the police with weapon of offence and blood stained hands.

¶26

Learned APP and learned counsel for family of the deceased strongly oppose the bail, submitting that the present accused/applicant is not entitled parity because role of the accused/applicant is distinct from Neeraj.

¶27

To begin with, as observed in the bail order dated 28.01.2026, there is no material to show that when Neeraj disclosed the location of the deceased to the present accused/applicant, Neeraj was aware that the present accused/applicant would convey the information to the CCL, who would in turn stab the deceased to death. Even as regards the allegation that Neeraj informed location of the deceased to the present accused/applicant, there is no material on record.

¶28

At the time of arguments on bail application of accused Neeraj, the Investigating Officer had not played in court the CCTV footage, which has been done today. The clear timeline of the CCTV footage would show a continuity of involvement of the present accused/applicant with the CCL and the co-accused Akash. It is made clear by the Investigating Officer that the timings depicted in the CCTV footage are faulty as the clock of the CCTV was faster by 02 hours 26 minutes. The CCTV footage depicts that at 03:36:30, the CCL enters the lane; at 03:36:44, the accused/applicant with co-accused Akash enters the lane and calls CCL, who returns and meets the

¶29

BAIL APPLN. 1745/2026

¶30

Page 3 of 4 pages

¶31

GIRISH 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=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2e KATHPALIA ee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.07.09 17:05:54 +05'30'

¶32

Signature Not Verified

¶33

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL YADAV Signing Da te:0 9.07.2026 17:19:19

¶34

accused/applicant; at 03:44:52, the deceased enters the lane; at 03:52:00, the stabbing starts and at that time, the present accused/applicant is visible ( in the other camera ); at 03:53:18, co-accused Akash returns with knife in hand and limping because he also suffered injuries; and finally at 03:56:13, the CCL returns with knife in hand. Going by the above narrated timeline, the role of the accused/applicant is far more serious than that of co-accused Neeraj, so it is not a case of parity.

¶35

Keeping in mind the above narrated circumstances and seriousness of offence, I do not find it a fit case to grant bail. The bail application is dismissed.

¶36

It is made clear that none of the above observations shall be read against either side by the trial court and the final decision of the trial shall be on the basis of evidence adduced in the court.

¶37

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

¶38

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3
GIRISH 962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF
DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b
40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH
KATHPALIA KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.07.09 17:06:07 +05'30'

¶39

GIRISH KATHPALIA (JUDGE)

¶40

JULY 09, 2026/ ry

¶41

BAIL APPLN. 1745/2026

¶42

Page 4 of 4 pages

¶43

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL YADAV Signing Da te:0 9.07.2026 17:19:19

Bhanu@Kunal v. State of Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhanu@Kunal v. State of Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ritu Gupta Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Pankaj Kumar @ Bauwa Vs the State(N.C.T) of Delhi

Pawan Kumar Gupta Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Tela Devi Vs the State of NCT of Delhi

Siyaram Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Harith Nagindas Kampani Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)