Mr. Anish Vs State through SHO Gtb Enclave

Broadly speaking, the prosecution case started from a blind FIR registered on statement of one Sati Ram, brother of the deceased, according to which, on 09.02.2018 at about 10:35 am, the deceased on his scooty was transporting 50 kg copper in a white bag, and at about 11:00 am he came to know that the deceased had been stabbed and had been taken to GTB Hospital. On reaching the hospital, he was informed by the deceased that

¶14

BAIL APPLN. 4792/2024

¶15

Page 1 of 3 pages

¶16

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: 2026.02.17 18:10:16 -08'00'

¶17

Signature Not Verified

¶18

Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:1 7.02.2026 18:33:23

¶19

two unknown boys had snatched the copper and one of them stabbed him due to which he lost consciousness and those boys fled. After investigation, the police arrested the accused/applicant and his co-accused Sonu.

¶20

Learned counsel for accused/applicant contends that there is no admissible evidence against the accused/applicant and he is in custody for past about eight years. It is also contended that all public witnesses already stand examined and there is no chance of conviction of the accused/applicant.

¶21

Learned APP for State assisted by IO/Inspector Ashwini submits that in view of seriousness of the allegations coupled with antecedents of the accused/applicant, he does not deserve to be released on bail.

¶22

In response to a specific query, it is submitted by learned APP for State that the only evidence against the accused/applicant is recovery of the knife allegedly used in the assault at the instance of the accused/applicant. It is also stated by learned APP for State that the said knife was stained with the blood of the deceased.

¶23

But admittedly, there is nothing to connect the said knife with the accused/applicant so far as the use thereof in the alleged offence is concerned. The IO did not even try to find fingerprints on the knife.

¶24

Further, as regards the alleged recovery, prosecution relies upon testimony of PW2, brother of the deceased. In the portion related to the alleged recovery, it is stated by PW2 that he along with police officials went

¶25

BAIL APPLN. 4792/2024

¶26

Page 2 of 3 pages

¶27

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: 2026.02.17 18:10:06 -08'00'

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:1 7.02.2026 18:33:23

¶30

to the house of the accused Anish from where, Anish produced one knife and scooty. It is not that the accused/applicant led the police party to the place where the knife was recovered. And there is no clarity as regards the portion of the house from where knife was recovered.

¶31

Of course, on this aspect, the learned trial court shall take independent view, which shall be in accordance with law. The purpose of above discussion is only by way of analysis if the accused/applicant deserves bail.

¶32

As regards the alleged antecedents, the admitted position is that out of three other cases, the accused/applicant stands acquitted in one and is on bail in the remaining two cases.

¶33

Considering the above circumstances, I do not find any reason to deprive further liberty to the accused/applicant. Therefore, the bail application is allowed and 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 Trial Court.

¶34

A copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the concerned Jail Superintendent for informing the accused/applicant.

¶35

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4
GIRISH afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626c
acca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID -
7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
KATHPALIA serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c4879
65ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.02.17 18:09:52 -08'00'

¶36

GIRISH KATHPALIA (JUDGE)

¶37

FEBRUARY 17, 2026/ as

¶38

BAIL APPLN. 4792/2024

¶39

Page 3 of 3 pages

¶40

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:1 7.02.2026 18:33:23

Mr. Anish v. State through SHO Gtb Enclave

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Anish v. State through SHO Gtb Enclave

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

Amandeep Singh Sran Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Sagar Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi

Aslam Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Visheshwar Yadav Vs Stae of NCT of Delhi

Ajay Nagpal Vs State

Udit Mishra Vs State (Nct of Delhi)