< Back

Saurabh vs The State NCT of Delhi 2026 DHC 1368

Synopsis

This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a regular bail application filed by an accused in a murder case registered under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court granted bail to the applicant, who had been in custody since December 2023, after finding that the prosecution's case suffered from significant weaknesses. Key factors influencing the decision included: the applicant was not named in the FIR, the two eye witnesses examined had turned hostile, the CCTV footage relied upon by the prosecution did not clearly identify the assailants, the recovery of blood-stained clothes was of doubtful evidentiary value, and the Investigating Officer failed to conduct a Test Identification Parade despite the accused being unidentified in the FIR.

1. Case Identification & Coram

Citation: 2026:DHC:1368

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Jurisdiction: Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction

Bail Application No.: 2065/2025

Coram: Hon'ble Justice Girish Kathpalia

Nature of Bench: Single Judge

Date of Decision: 17th February 2026

2. Legal Framework & Relevant Provisions
The judgment engages with substantive criminal law and procedural law relating to bail:

Substantive Law: The Indian Penal Code, 1860, particularly:
Section 302: Punishment for murder.
Section 34: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
Procedural Law: The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, particularly:
Section 439: Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail.
Evidence Law Principles:
Evidentiary value of CCTV footage.
Significance of Test Identification Parade (TIP) when accused is not named in FIR.
Effect of witnesses turning hostile on prosecution case.
Reliability of recovery evidence.

3. Relevant Facts of the Case

FIR No. 514/2023 was registered at Police Station Jaitpur, Delhi for offences under Section 302/34 IPC based on a complaint filed by Arjun, friend of the deceased Ravi.
According to the FIR statement, on 11th December 2023, three to four boys started beating Ravi. When Ravi tried to flee, the boys stopped him and assaulted him with fists and kicks.
The complainant Arjun stated in the FIR that he knew two of the assailants as Monu and Prince, and that he could identify the others. The applicant Saurabh was not named in the FIR.
The applicant was arrested on 13th December 2023 and had been in custody since then.
During investigation, the Investigating Officer allegedly recovered the applicant's clothes, on which blood of the deceased was detected as per the FSL report. A danda (stick) allegedly used in the assault was also recovered at the instance of the applicant, though it bore no blood stains.
The prosecution examined only two persons as eye witnesses, both of whom turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case.
The applicant, aged 25 years with no criminal antecedents, filed the present application seeking regular bail under Section 439 CrPC.

4. Issues Before the High Court
The primary issues for determination were:

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 CrPC in a case registered under Section 302/34 IPC?
Whether the prosecution's evidence, including CCTV footage, recovery of clothes and danda, and the testimony of hostile witnesses, is sufficient to justify continued incarceration of the applicant?
Whether the failure of the Investigating Officer to conduct a Test Identification Parade, despite the applicant not being named in the FIR, weakens the prosecution's case for the purpose of bail?
Whether the CCTV footage reliably establishes the identity of the applicant as one of the assailants?

5. Ratio Decidendi & Court's Reasoning

The Court granted bail to the applicant. The ratio decidendi can be summarized as:

Unreliable Identification: The CCTV footage, while being the best depiction of the incident, did not show the faces of the assailants in a manner that they could be correctly identified. For the limited purpose of considering bail, the Court found the identification through CCTV to be an unreliable factor.
Contradiction in Manner of Assault: The FIR stated that the deceased was assaulted with fists and kicks, but the CCTV footage allegedly depicted only one boy assaulting a person with a danda. This contradiction raised doubts about the prosecution's version.
Hostile Witnesses: The Investigating Officer examined only two persons as eye witnesses, and both turned hostile, failing to support the prosecution case. This significantly weakened the evidentiary basis for opposing bail.
Doubtful Recovery: The Court expressed skepticism about the recovery of blood-stained clothes, questioning why an accused would retain such incriminating evidence for two days after the incident (incident on 11.12.2023, recovery on 13.12.2023). Additionally, the danda recovered bore no blood stains, further diminishing its evidentiary value.
No Test Identification Parade: Despite the applicant not being named in the FIR, the Investigating Officer failed to arrange any Test Identification Parade. This was a significant lapse, especially given the contradiction between the FIR (assault by fists/kicks) and the subsequent version (use of danda).
Custody Period and Antecedents: The applicant was a young man of 25 years with no criminal antecedents and had been in custody since 13th December 2023. This weighed in favor of granting bail.
Overall Circumstances: Considering the totality of circumstances—absence of reliable identification, hostile witnesses, doubtful recoveries, failure to conduct TIP, and the applicant's clean record—the Court found no reason to further deprive the applicant of his liberty.

6. Legal Principles Established/Reinforced

While the judgment does not establish new law, it reinforces several established principles governing bail in serious criminal cases:

Bail, Not Jail, is the Rule: The judgment reaffirms the principle that bail should be granted unless there are compelling reasons to deny it, even in cases involving serious offences like murder, if the prosecution's evidence is weak or unreliable.
Importance of TIP: When an accused is not named in the FIR, the Investigating Officer must ordinarily conduct a Test Identification Parade to establish identity. Failure to do so can significantly weaken the prosecution's case at the bail stage.
Scrutiny of Recovery Evidence: Courts can, at the bail stage, examine the plausibility of recovery evidence. Recoveries that defy common sense (e.g., accused retaining blood-stained clothes for two days) may be viewed with skepticism.
Effect of Hostile Witnesses: While witnesses turning hostile does not automatically entitle an accused to bail, it is a relevant factor that weakens the prosecution's prima facie case for opposing bail.
Limited Appreciation of Evidence: At the bail stage, courts can undertake a limited appreciation of evidence to determine whether a prima facie case exists, without conducting a mini-trial or rendering final findings that could prejudice either party.

7. Judicial Analysis & Examination

The Court's analytical approach was structured and pragmatic:

Examination of Prosecution Case: The Court first summarized the prosecution's case as presented in the FIR and during investigation.
Scrutiny of Evidence for Bail Purposes: The Court examined each piece of evidence—CCTV footage, recovery of clothes and danda, examination of witnesses—from the perspective of whether it established a prima facie case justifying continued incarceration.
Identification of Lapses: The Court identified specific lapses in investigation: failure to conduct TIP, examination of only two witnesses despite CCTV showing large public presence, and contradictions between FIR and subsequent version.
Application of Common Sense: The Court applied common sense to question the recovery of blood-stained clothes and the absence of blood on the alleged weapon.
Balancing Interests: The Court balanced the seriousness of the offence (murder) against the weaknesses in the prosecution's case and the applicant's right to liberty pending trial.
Cautious Approach: The Court explicitly stated that it was avoiding rendering any final finding on the CCTV footage to ensure neither side is prejudiced at trial, limiting its analysis to the purposes of bail.

8. Critical Analysis & Final Outcome

Critical Analysis: The judgment reflects a balanced and pragmatic approach to bail in serious criminal cases. The Court correctly identified that the prosecution's case suffered from fundamental weaknesses: the applicant was not named in the FIR, the only eye witnesses turned hostile, the CCTV identification was unreliable, and the recoveries were of doubtful probative value. The failure to conduct a TIP was a significant investigative lapse that further undermined the prosecution's ability to establish identity. The Court's skepticism about the accused retaining blood-stained clothes for two days is well-founded—common sense suggests an accused would dispose of incriminating evidence rather than preserve it. The judgment also appropriately limited its analysis to the bail stage, avoiding any findings that could prejudice the trial. One might question whether the seriousness of a murder charge alone should outweigh these evidentiary weaknesses, but the Court correctly held that bail cannot be denied merely on the basis of the gravity of the offence when the foundational evidence is unreliable.

Final Outcome: The bail application was allowed. The applicant was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. A copy of the order was directed to be transmitted to the concerned Jail Superintendent.