Shubham @ Ritik vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi 2026 DHC 1146
Synopsis
This judgment rendered by the High Court of Delhi addresses an application for regular bail in a murder case registered under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner-accused sought bail primarily on the ground that his name was not mentioned in the first information report and that his identity was disputed. The court, after evaluating the competing submissions, dismissed the bail application while directing expeditious completion of trial. The judgment illustrates the careful balancing exercise undertaken by courts when considering bail in serious and heinous offences, particularly where strong circumstantial and scientific evidence exists against the accused. The court declined to exercise its discretion in favour of the accused despite prolonged custody, citing the gravity of the offence, the evidentiary material on record including witness identification, forensic confirmation of CCTV footage, recovery of the murder weapon with matching blood group, recovery of clothes matching those depicted in CCTV footage, and the criminal antecedents of the petitioner.
Case Analysis: Shubham @ Ritik v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Bail Appln. 2481/2025
High Court of Delhi (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
1. Proper Heading and Basic Information
Name of the Case: Shubham @ Ritik v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Citation: 2026:DHC:1146
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Girish Kathpalia
Date of Judgment: February 11, 2026
Bench Strength: Single Judge Bench
Case Number: Bail Appln. 2481/2025
FIR Details: FIR No. 536/2022, Police Station Badarpur
Offences Charged: Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Nature of Application: Regular bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Judgment Type: Oral judgment dismissing bail application
2. Legal Framework
2.1. Substantive Laws Involved
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 302 - Punishment for murder
Section 34 - Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 437 - Where bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence
Section 439 - Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail
Section 389 - Suspension of sentence pending appeal (not directly invoked, but contextual)
Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 3 - Interpretation clause (relevancy and admissibility)
Section 8 - Motive (relevant to the incident)
Section 9 - Facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts (identification)
Section 27 - How much of information received from accused may be proved (disclosure leading to recovery)
Section 45 - Opinions of experts (FSL reports regarding CCTV footage and blood analysis)
2.2. Subject Matter and Core Legal Controversy
This judgment primarily concerns:
Whether an accused not named in the FIR is entitled to bail as a matter of right
The weight to be attached to post-FIR identification of accused by the complainant witness
The evidentiary value of forensic reports confirming authenticity of CCTV footage
The significance of recoveries made pursuant to disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act
The relevance of criminal antecedents in bail jurisprudence
Balancing personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution with societal interest in investigation and trial of heinous offences
Directing time-bound completion of trial as a counter-balance to refusal of bail
2.3. Precedential Principles Applied
While the judgment does not expressly cite specific case law, it implicitly applies the following well-settled principles of bail jurisprudence:
Principles for grant of bail in non-bailable offences:
Presumption of innocence is not a determinative factor at the bail stage
Gravity and nature of the offence must be primary considerations
Whether the accused is a flight risk or likely to tamper with evidence
Whether the accused has criminal antecedents
Strength of the prima facie case against the accused
Period of custody already undergone
Principles specific to murder cases:
Bail is generally not granted in cases punishable with death or life imprisonment where prima facie evidence exists
Identification by eyewitness, though subsequent to FIR, carries significant weight
Recoveries pursuant to disclosure statements are relevant circumstances
3. Facts of the Case
3.1. Prosecution Case in Brief
The prosecution case, as emerging from the FIR registered on the complaint of the nephew of the deceased, is as follows:
Date and place of incident: December 18, 2022, at a location where a betrothal ceremony was being organized in the neighbourhood of the complainant.
Background leading to incident: During the ceremony, one Shubham @ Tolu called the co-accused Kohinoor @ Chavanni over telephone, leading to an exchange of abuses. The complainant's cousin Gaurav requested the complainant to call his paternal uncle (the deceased). Subsequently, the deceased informed the complainant that "Chavanni had been taught a lesson."
Immediate sequence of events: At approximately 7:45 p.m., while everyone was seated for dinner, the deceased left the venue stating he would return shortly. When the complainant went out to call him, he witnessed Chavanni, Prashant and one more boy assaulting the deceased. Chavanni was holding a country-made pistol while Prashant and the third boy were carrying knives and threatening to kill the deceased. The assailants stabbed the deceased. The complainant's father arrived at the scene and shifted the deceased to the hospital.
Complainant's statement regarding accused: The complainant stated that he had seen all three assailants previously engaged in rowdyism (goondaism) in the same colony and that they had killed his paternal uncle to avenge the beating of Chavanni.
FIR registration: Based on this complaint, FIR No. 536/2022 was registered at Police Station Badarpur for offences under Section 302/34 IPC.
3.2. Position of the Petitioner-Accused
Identity dispute: The petitioner, Shubham @ Ritik, contends that he is only known as Shubham and not as Ritik, thereby raising a question regarding his identity as the perpetrator.
Non-nomination in FIR: The petitioner was not named in the first information report. His name emerged only subsequently during investigation.
Arrest circumstances: The petitioner was arrested solely on the basis of disclosure statements of co-accused or other witnesses.
CCTV footage: The petitioner claims that he was not identified from the CCTV footage of the spot.
Criminal antecedents: While the petitioner admits to three previous criminal cases, he contends that in one case he has been acquitted and in the other two pending cases he has been granted bail.
Custody period: The petitioner has been in custody since December 22, 2022, a period of approximately three years and two months at the time of hearing.
3.3. Prosecution Case Against the Petitioner
Eyewitness identification: The first informant (PW1), in his testimony before the trial court, has supported the prosecution case and specifically identified the petitioner-accused as the person who used a knife to stab the deceased.
CCTV footage: The CCTV footage from the spot was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and the FSL has confirmed the genuineness and authenticity of the footage.
Recovery of murder weapon: A blood-stained knife was recovered at the instance of the petitioner. The FSL report confirmed that the blood on the recovered knife matched the blood group of the deceased.
Recovery of clothes: The clothes worn by the petitioner at the time of the incident were recovered at his instance. The CCTV footage depicts the petitioner wearing the same clothes, thereby corroborating the recovery.
Criminal antecedents: The prosecution pointed out that three additional criminal cases are registered against the petitioner, indicating his criminal propensities and lack of reformative potential.
4. Issues Before the Court
While the judgment does not formally frame issues in a numbered list, the following questions arise for consideration from the contentions raised by both sides:
4.1. Primary Issue
Whether the petitioner-accused is entitled to regular bail under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in connection with FIR No. 536/2022 for offences under Section 302/34 IPC?
4.2. Subsidiary Issues
a) Whether non-mention of the petitioner's name in the FIR, by itself, entitles him to bail?
b) What is the evidentiary value of post-FIR identification of the accused by the complainant witness at the stage of consideration of bail?
c) Whether recoveries made pursuant to disclosure statements and corroborated by forensic evidence and CCTV footage constitute strong prima facie material justifying denial of bail?
d) What weight should be attached to criminal antecedents of the accused while considering bail in a murder case?
e) Whether prolonged custody of three years and two months, in itself, constitutes a sufficient ground for grant of bail in a heinous offence?
f) Whether the trial court can be directed to conclude prosecution evidence within a stipulated timeline as a measure to balance the rights of the accused with societal interests?
5. Ratio Decidendi
The ratio decidendi of this judgment can be distilled into the following propositions:
5.1. On Non-Nomination in FIR
Held: The absence of the accused's name in the first information report is not an automatic or conclusive ground for grant of bail. The FIR is not an encyclopaedia of all facts and evidence; it is merely the first information of an occurrence that sets the criminal law in motion. Names of assailants may emerge during investigation, and such subsequent identification does not render the prosecution case suspect, especially when corroborated by other evidence including eyewitness testimony, forensic reports, and recoveries.
5.2. On Evidentiary Value of Post-FIR Identification
Held: Identification of the accused by the complainant witness in his testimony under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and as PW1 before the court constitutes prima facie material that must be weighed against the accused at the bail stage. The court is not required to conduct a mini-trial or assess the ultimate credibility of such identification; it is sufficient that there exists credible material indicating the accused's involvement.
5.3. On Recoveries and Forensic Evidence
Held: Recoveries made pursuant to disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, when corroborated by:
Forensic confirmation of the genuineness of CCTV footage,
Matching of blood on recovered weapon with the deceased's blood group,
Recovery of clothes matching those depicted in authenticated CCTV footage,
Constitute strong circumstantial evidence that establishes a prima facie case against the accused, warranting denial of bail.
5.4. On Criminal Antecedents
Held: The criminal history of an accused is a relevant consideration in bail jurisprudence. While acquittal in one case and grant of bail in pending cases are factors to be noted, the existence of multiple criminal cases indicates the accused's propensity to commit offences and raises concerns about whether he is a law-abiding citizen deserving of discretionary relief.
5.5. On Balancing Liberty and Investigation
Held: Personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, though fundamental, must be balanced against:
The gravity and heinous nature of the offence
The interests of the victim's family and society at large
The need for unhindered investigation and trial
The risk of the accused tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses
In cases of murder punishable with death or life imprisonment, where strong prima facie evidence exists, bail is ordinarily not granted.
5.6. On Time-Bound Trial as a Countervailing Measure
Held: Where bail is refused on merits, the court may, in the interests of justice, direct expeditious conclusion of trial to minimize the period of pre-conviction detention. Such directions serve to balance the competing interests of societal security and individual liberty. The trial court is requested to prepone dates and conclude prosecution evidence within a stipulated timeframe, and the defence is cautioned against seeking adjournments.
6. Legal Framework: Established Principles and Judicial Approach
This judgment does not establish new legal principles but authoritatively reaffirms and applies the well-settled framework governing bail in heinous offences. The following aspects of the legal framework merit specific attention:
6.1. The Nature of Judicial Discretion in Bail Matters
The judgment exemplifies that bail is not a matter of mathematical computation based on period of custody or absence of name in FIR. Rather, it involves a nuanced exercise of judicial discretion where multiple factors are weighed collectively. The court declined to compartmentalize each factor in isolation and instead adopted a holistic approach.
6.2. Prima Facie Case Versus Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt
The judgment implicitly recognizes the distinction between:
The standard of proof required for conviction (beyond reasonable doubt)
The standard of assessment required for bail (prima facie case)
At the bail stage, the court is not required to hold a mini-trial or reach definitive conclusions on the ultimate guilt or innocence of the accused. It is sufficient that there exists credible material which, if believed, could result in conviction.
6.3. Admissibility and Weight of Post-FIR Identification
The judgment clarifies that identification of the accused by a witness after the registration of FIR is not inherently suspect. While such identification may be subject to cross-examination and judicial scrutiny at trial, at the bail stage it constitutes material that can be relied upon by the prosecution.
6.4. Corroborative Value of Scientific Evidence
The judgment places significant emphasis on forensic evidence:
FSL confirmation of CCTV footage genuineness
FSL confirmation of blood matching
Visual corroboration of recovered clothes with CCTV imagery
This reflects the increasing reliance on scientific evidence in criminal jurisprudence and indicates that courts are willing to accord substantial weight to such evidence even at the pre-trial stage.
6.5. Balancing Constitutional Rights
The judgment performs the delicate balancing exercise between:
Article 21 - Right to life and personal liberty (including right to speedy trial and presumption of innocence)
Societal interest in effective investigation and prosecution of serious crime
By refusing bail but directing expedited trial, the court struck a balance that protected both interests to the extent possible.
7. Examination and Analysis by the Court
7.1. Analysis of the Petitioner's Contentions
Contention 1: Non-mention in FIR
The court did not expressly reject this contention but implicitly held that it was outweighed by other factors. The reasoning suggests that an FIR is not expected to contain exhaustive details or names of all accused; subsequent emergence of names during investigation is a normal and permissible process.
Contention 2: Identity dispute (Shubham versus Ritik)
The court did not specifically address this contention, possibly because:
The prosecution had not treated this as a material discrepancy
The eyewitness identification and CCTV footage independently established the identity of the perpetrator regardless of the alias
The petitioner himself uses both names (as reflected in the case title "Shubham @ Ritik")
Contention 3: Arrest only on disclosure
The court implicitly rejected this by noting that arrest was followed by:
Independent eyewitness identification
Forensic evidence
Recoveries
Corroboration through CCTV
Contention 4: Non-identification in CCTV
The court rejected this based on the prosecution's submission that:
The CCTV footage was sent to FSL and genuineness confirmed
The clothes recovered at petitioner's instance matched those in the CCTV footage
This establishes that the petitioner was indeed the person depicted in the footage
Contention 5: Acquittal in one case and bail in others
The court noted these submissions but evidently concluded that the existence of three criminal cases, even with one acquittal, indicated a pattern of criminal behaviour. The mere fact that the petitioner was granted bail in other cases does not create an entitlement to bail in a murder case.
Contention 6: Custody period of three years
The court acknowledged the custody period but held that, in light of the seriousness of the offence and the strength of the evidence, this alone was insufficient to warrant bail.
7.2. Analysis of the Prosecution's Contentions
Contention 1: Eyewitness identification as PW1
The court accorded significant weight to this factor. The complainant, being the nephew of the deceased and an eyewitness to the incident, identified the petitioner as the person who used the knife to stab the deceased. This is perhaps the strongest piece of oral evidence against the petitioner.
Contention 2: FSL confirmation of CCTV footage
The court treated this as critical corroborative evidence. Authentication of the footage by FSL eliminated the possibility of tampering and established the reliability of the visual evidence.
Contention 3: Recovery of blood-stained knife
The recovery of the murder weapon at the petitioner's instance, coupled with FSL confirmation that the blood on the knife matched the deceased's blood group, created a strong chain of circumstantial evidence. This connects the petitioner directly to the crime.
Contention 4: Recovery of clothes matching CCTV footage
This provided visual corroboration of the petitioner's presence at the scene and his participation in the crime. The fact that the recovered clothes matched those depicted in authenticated CCTV footage significantly strengthened the prosecution case.
Contention 5: Criminal antecedents
The court considered this as an aggravating factor indicating that the petitioner was not a first-time offender but had a history of involvement in criminal activities.
7.3. The Court's Balancing Exercise
The court engaged in a classic balancing exercise between:
Factors favouring bail:
Custody period of approximately three years
Non-nomination in FIR
Acquittal in one antecedent case
Grant of bail in other pending cases
Factors against bail:
Gravity of offence (murder)
Eyewitness identification
Forensic corroboration of CCTV footage
Recovery of murder weapon with matching blood
Recovery of clothes matching CCTV depiction
Criminal antecedents
Conclusion: The factors against bail substantially outweighed those in favour, leading to dismissal of the application.
8. Critical Analysis of the Judgment
8.1. Strengths of the Judgment
a) Principled Application of Bail Jurisprudence: The judgment correctly applies the established principle that bail is not to be granted mechanically in heinous offences. The court rightly refused to treat the absence of the petitioner's name in the FIR as a determinative factor, recognizing that FIRs are not expected to be exhaustive records of all evidence.
b) Holistic Evaluation of Evidence: The court commendably refrained from compartmentalizing each piece of evidence and instead evaluated the cumulative effect of eyewitness testimony, forensic reports, recoveries, and criminal antecedents. This holistic approach is jurisprudentially sound.
c) Reliance on Scientific Evidence: The judgment's emphasis on FSL reports confirming CCTV footage authenticity and blood matching reflects a modern, evidence-based approach to criminal adjudication. This signals that courts are willing to accord significant weight to forensic evidence even at the pre-trial stage.
d) Balancing Liberty with Societal Interest: The court struck an appropriate balance by refusing bail but directing expedited trial. This ensures that the accused's prolonged pre-conviction detention is minimized while also protecting society from the risk of an accused charged with murder being at large.
e) Specificity in Directions: The direction to the trial court to prepone dates and conclude prosecution evidence within two months demonstrates judicial sensitivity to the accused's right to speedy trial. The caution to the defence against seeking adjournments ensures that the timeline is adhered to.
f) Brief and Focused Reasoning: The judgment is concise yet comprehensive, addressing all material contentions without unnecessary elaboration. This reflects judicial efficiency.
8.2. Potential Limitations and Questions
a) Limited Discussion on Identity Dispute: The petitioner raised a specific contention that his name is only Shubham and not Ritik, suggesting possible mistaken identity. The judgment does not expressly address this contention. While the prosecution case may not hinge on this discrepancy, a brief discussion would have provided complete clarity.
b) No Reference to Test Identification Parade: The judgment does not indicate whether a test identification parade was conducted or whether the eyewitness's identification of the petitioner was preceded by TIP proceedings. While identification in court as PW1 is substantive evidence, the absence of prior TIP may be a factor that could be argued at trial. The judgment does not address this.
c) Antecedents - Lack of Distinction: While the court noted the prosecution's submission regarding three antecedents and the defence's submission regarding acquittal in one and bail in two, the judgment does not expressly state what weight was attached to these antecedents. A clearer articulation would have been beneficial.
d) No Discussion on Section 34 IPC: The charge is under Section 302/34 IPC, involving common intention. The judgment does not discuss the petitioner's specific role vis-à-vis the other accused or the applicability of Section 34. This may be relevant for determining relative culpability.
e) Proportionality Analysis: The judgment does not explicitly engage in a proportionality analysis weighing the period of custody (three years) against the potential sentence (life imprisonment or death). While the court clearly concluded that bail was not warranted, a brief proportionality discussion would have strengthened the reasoning.
f) No Reference to Constitutional Bench Decisions: The judgment does not cite any precedents, particularly the landmark decisions of the Supreme Court on bail such as State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, or recent decisions in P. Chidambaram v. CBI. While citation of precedents is not mandatory in every order, reference to established principles would have added doctrinal depth.
8.3. Comparative Analysis with Other Jurisdictions
The approach of the Delhi High Court aligns with the restrictive bail jurisprudence prevailing in India for heinous offences. This contrasts with more liberal approaches in some common law jurisdictions where bail is denied only when the prosecution establishes substantial grounds for believing that the accused would abscond, commit offences, or interfere with witnesses. The Indian approach places greater emphasis on the gravity of the offence and strength of the prima facie case.
8.4. Policy Implications
For Investigating Agencies: The judgment reinforces that thorough investigation, including forensic analysis of CCTV footage, scientific examination of recovered articles, and diligent collection of eyewitness accounts, pays dividends at the bail stage. Strong investigative work can effectively counter bail applications.
For Trial Courts: The direction to conclude prosecution evidence within two months, with specific caution against adjournments, reflects the higher judiciary's concern regarding delays in trial. Trial courts are expected to adhere to such timelines strictly.
For Accused Persons: The judgment sends a clear message that in murder cases with prima facie evidence, bail will not be granted merely on the ground of custody period or absence of name in FIR. This may encourage plea bargaining or expeditious trial.
For Legislatures: The recurring issue of prolonged pre-conviction detention despite refusal of bail highlights the need for legislative intervention, possibly through amendments providing for time limits for completion of trial in heinous offences.
9. Final Outcome and Conclusion
9.1. Operative Order
Held: The bail application filed by the petitioner-accused under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is dismissed.
Directions to the trial court:
a) The learned trial court is requested to conclude the entire prosecution evidence within a period of two months.
b) The trial court is requested to prepone the date of hearing (currently 30.03.2026) according to its calendar.
c) The period of two months for conclusion of prosecution evidence shall be counted from the said preponed date.
d) The defence side shall not take any adjournment before the trial court.
Directions for communication:
a) A copy of this order shall be sent to the learned trial court.
b) A copy of this order shall be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for being conveyed to the accused/applicant.
9.2. Summary of Findings
Core QuestionCourt's FindingWhether non-mention in FIR entitles accused to bailNo. FIR is not an exhaustive document; subsequent identification is permissible.Whether eyewitness identification after FIR is credibleYes, at the bail stage it constitutes prima facie material.Whether recoveries pursuant to disclosure statements are significantYes, especially when corroborated by forensic evidence and CCTV footage.Whether FSL confirmation of CCTV footage strengthens prosecution caseYes, it establishes authenticity and reliability of visual evidence.Whether recovery of weapon with deceased's blood is materialYes, it directly connects accused to the crime.Whether criminal antecedents are relevantYes, they indicate propensity and affect entitlement to discretionary relief.Whether three years custody justifies bail in murder caseNo, when strong prima facie evidence exists, gravity outweighs custody period.Whether trial can be directed to conclude expeditiouslyYes, to balance denial of bail with right to speedy trial.
9.3. Legal Principles Reaffirmed
Bail is not a matter of right in murder cases: Where the offence is punishable with death or life imprisonment and prima facie evidence exists, bail is ordinarily denied.
FIR is not a complete catalogue: The absence of an accused's name in the FIR does not create an indefeasible right to bail, nor does it render the subsequent prosecution case suspect.
Post-FIR identification carries weight: Identification of the accused by an eyewitness in statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and in court testimony constitutes relevant material for bail consideration.
Scientific evidence commands judicial confidence: FSL reports confirming authenticity of electronic evidence and matching of biological samples are accorded significant weight even at the pre-trial stage.
Recoveries under Section 27 are material: Disclosure statements leading to recoveries, particularly when corroborated by independent evidence, establish prima facie involvement.
Antecedents matter: The criminal history of an accused is a relevant factor in the exercise of bail discretion.
Speedy trial directions balance competing interests: Where bail is refused, courts may direct expeditious conclusion of trial to minimize prejudice from pre-conviction detention.
10. Concluding Observations
This judgment is a classic illustration of the nuanced and context-sensitive approach adopted by Indian courts in matters of bail. The High Court of Delhi has demonstrated that bail adjudication is not a mechanical exercise of counting days in custody or checking boxes of procedural compliance. Rather, it involves a holistic assessment of multiple factors—the nature and gravity of the offence, the strength of the prima facie evidence, the conduct and antecedents of the accused, the interests of the victim and society, and the right of the accused to personal liberty and speedy trial.
The judgment correctly accords significant weight to scientific and forensic evidence, reflecting the modern trend in criminal jurisprudence. The emphasis on FSL confirmation of CCTV footage authenticity and DNA matching demonstrates that courts are willing to repose confidence in reliable scientific methods even at the pre-trial stage.
Perhaps the most commendable aspect of the judgment is the direction for time-bound conclusion of prosecution evidence. By doing so, the court acknowledged that while the accused is not entitled to bail on merits, he is certainly entitled to a speedy trial. This direction serves as a model for how courts can balance competing interests—protecting society from an accused charged with murder while also protecting that very accused from indefinite pre-conviction detention.
The judgment also carries an implicit message for investigating agencies: thorough, scientifically-backed investigation strengthens the prosecution case not only at trial but also at the bail stage. The recoveries, forensic confirmations, and witness identifications in this case created a formidable edifice of prima facie evidence that effectively countered the petitioner's bail application.
For trial courts, the judgment serves as a reminder that delay in trial has consequences. The higher judiciary is increasingly willing to intervene with specific timelines when it perceives that prolonged pre-conviction detention is becoming oppressive.
For accused persons and defence counsel, the judgment makes it clear that in heinous offences with credible evidence, bail will not be granted merely because the accused was not named in the FIR or has spent a few years in custody. The focus must shift from seeking bail to seeking speedy trial.
In the ultimate analysis, the judgment strikes a careful balance between the rights of the individual and the interests of society—a balance that lies at the heart of criminal jurisprudence. It protects society by refusing bail to a person prima facie involved in murder, and it protects the individual by directing expeditious conclusion of his trial. This is judicial craftsmanship at its finest.