High CourtsSingle Bench(2026) 07 DEL CK 0320

Deepak vs State (GNCT Of Delhi)

Delhi High Court, Principal Bench, New Delhi · Decided on 9 July 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Girish Kathpalia, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
BAIL APPLN. 2155/2026 & CRL.M.A. 1774/2026

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 387 words
1.

The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 449/2025 of PS Mayur Vihar for offence under Section 109(1) BNS.

2.

Broadly speaking, allegation against the accused/applicant is that he inflicted multiple stab wounds on the complainant de facto and his brother.

3.

It is submitted on behalf of accused/applicant that even the accused/applicant had sustained injuries caused by the complainant de facto and his brother along with one more person, namely Karan. It is further submitted that the accused/applicant also lodged a complaint against the present complainant party, but no action has been taken by the IO. Further, it is submitted that since both injured persons were discharged from hospital on the same day, no purpose would be served by keeping the present accused/applicant in jail. It is also contended that the knife allegedly used by the accused/applicant has not been seized by the IO.

4.

On the other hand, on instructions of IO/SI Mohd. Naseem Khan, learned APP submits that the knife could not be recovered, despite taking police custody of the accused/applicant because he had thrown away the same somewhere.

5.

In response to a specific query, the IO admits that the present accused/applicant also suffered injuries and even MLC was prepared. On being called upon to show the MLC of the accused/applicant, the IO submits that the same was sent to the hospital for opinion but he did not retain a copy of the said MLC. But on being called upon to show the case diary reflecting that the MLC was sent by him for opinion, the IO submits that he has not brought the same.

6.

From the above circumstances, it appears that genesis of the occurrence is being concealed by the investigating agency.

7.

Therefore, there is no reason to further deprive the accused/applicant liberty. The bail application is allowed and the 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.

8.

Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for informing the accused/applicant.

9.

Nothing observed in this order shall be read to the prejudice of either side at the final stage of trial.

10.

Accompanying application also stands disposed of.