BAIL APPLN./3082/2026 of DEEPAK KUMAR @ SUCHA Vs THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI on 23 September 2026

O R D E R

% 23.09.2026

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present application has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), seeking grant of regular bail in FIR No. 541/2024 dated 01.07.2024, registered at Police Station Okhla Industrial Area, District South-East, Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR was initially registered under Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC, and that Section 307 IPC was subsequently added. It is contended that the said provision was invoked at a considerably later stage.

4. It is further submitted that the brother of the victim who is also an advocate by profession, had influenced the subsequent statement of the victim, pursuant to which Section 307 IPC came to be added. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was arrested nearly one year after the registration of the FIR and has remained in judicial custody for about one year. It is further submitted that all material witnesses have already been examined and that the eyewitness has not supported the case of the prosecution.

5. Learned counsel further submits that the concerned doctor has deposed before the learned Trial Court that the injuries reflected in the MLC could also be sustained in a road traffic accident.

6. Per contra, learned APP for the State submits that Section 307 IPC was invoked shortly after the occurrence and disputes the contention that it was added after six months.

7. It is submitted that the FIR was registered on 01.06.2024 and that as per the case diary, Section 307 IPC was added on 03.07.2024.

8. Learned APP further submits that after his discharge from the hospital, the victim made a statement on the basis of which Section 307 IPC came to be invoked.

9. It is further submitted that, subsequent to the present case, two other FIRs involving offences of a similar nature have been registered against the petitioner. It is also pointed out that the victim has lost his left eye as a consequence of the injuries sustained in the incident. The State, therefore, on the basis of the aforesaid, opposes the grant of bail to the applicant.

10. Heard the learned counsel[s] for the respective parties and perused the material placed on record.

11. Perusal of the record shows that Sections 279 and 337 of IPC, which were initially invoked, were subsequently deleted and then Section 307 IPC

came to be invoked against the petitioner. Merely because the police could arrest the petitioner only after about one year cannot, at this stage and while considering the present bail application, be a ground to raise any doubt as to the prosecution’s case. The Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that the victim has lost his left eye and that two other cases involving offences of a similar nature have been registered against the petitioner

12. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage.

13. Accordingly, the present bail application is dismissed and thereby, disposed of.

14. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.

15. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned learned Trial Court for necessary information and compliance.

16. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2026/ys/PG