Delhi High Court
BAIL APPLN./3519/2026 of AAKASH @ GITTI Vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI on 30 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010399602026 + BAIL APPLN. 3519/2026 AAKASH @ GITTI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Takshay, Adv. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Raghuvinder Verma, APP with Insp. Dharmendra Pratap Singh, P.S. Alipur, Delhi. CORAM: HON'BLE MS.
$~7
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
#
CNR No. DLHC010399602026
+
BAIL APPLN. 3519/2026
AAKASH @ GITTI
.....Petitioner
Through:
Mr. Takshay, Adv.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
.....Respondent
Through:
Mr. Raghuvinder Verma, APP with
Insp. Dharmendra Pratap Singh, P.S.
Alipur, Delhi.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
% 30.09.2026
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present application has been filed under Section 483 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNSS’), seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 109/2022, registered at Police Station Alipur, Delhi, under Sections 302/201/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been arrested only on the disclosure statement of the co-accused and that there is no incriminating evidence against him. It is further submitted that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner or at his instance. Learned counsel submits that out of the 46 prosecution witnesses cited in the chargesheet, only five witnesses have been examined and the material public witnesses examined so far have not attributed any role to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the alleged eye-witnesses have failed to identify the petitioner from the CCTV footage played before the learned Trial Court.
4. Per contra, learned APP for the State submits that the petitioner is clearly visible in the CCTV footage collected during investigation along with the co-accused persons. He further submits that out of the material witnesses examined, PW-3 has identified some of the accused persons, whereas PW-5 has turned hostile. He submits that the evidence of PW-1 is yet to be completed and several material witnesses are yet to be examined. Learned APP further submits that there are other criminal cases of a similar nature pending against the petitioner in different States.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
6. The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. As per the status report and the material placed on record, the CCTV footage collected during investigation allegedly shows the petitioner along with the co-accused persons. Further, PW-3 has identified some of the accused persons during his examination, whereas PW-5 has turned hostile. The evidence of PW-1 is yet to be completed and several material witnesses are yet to be examined.
7. At this stage, the evidentiary value of the material on record cannot be conclusively assessed. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material available on record and the stage of the trial, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no ground for grant of bail is made out. The present application is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
9. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 30, 2026/prg/P