New Delhi, Sep 25 (SocialNews.XYZ) The Delhi High Court has refused to grant regular bail to a 26-year-old man accused of attacking his friend with a sharp object during a drunken scuffle, observing that the victim’s kidney had to be surgically removed and there was a reasonable apprehension of threats to key prosecution witnesses.
Dismissing the bail plea, a single-judge Bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna observed that the charge sheet had already been filed, but only the complainant had been examined out of 22 prosecution witnesses, while the injured victim was yet to depose before the trial court.
"Taking an overall view of the facts and circumstances and having regard to the nature and gravity of the accusation, the stage of the trial with the victim yet to be examined, and the reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced, the applicant has been unable to make out a case for grant of regular bail at this stage," it said.
The bench added that the applicant's family members were alleged to have threatened the complainant and victim with dire consequences for pursuing the case.
The case relates to an FIR registered at Sector 23 Police Station, Dwarka, on May 9, 2025, initially under Section 118(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Following the investigation, the charge sheet was filed invoking additional offences under Sections 118(2) and 190(1) of the BNS.
According to the prosecution, the complainant and the victim were friends of the accused, Bharat Singh.
On May 8, 2025, the accused allegedly called the complainant and victim to help him load goods into a truck, following which the three consumed alcohol and the complainant and victim returned to their rented accommodation. Later that evening, the accused allegedly called them to his house, where a scuffle broke out. During the altercation, he allegedly attacked the victim with a sharp, metal-like object, following which the victim was taken to hospital.
The prosecution said the victim suffered grievous injuries resulting in damage to one of his kidneys, which ultimately had to be surgically removed.
Opposing bail, the prosecution and counsel appearing for the complainant and victim submitted that the applicant had inflicted an injury on a vital organ and was facing allegations including attempt to murder.
They further submitted that the crime weapon, a knife, was recovered at the applicant's instance and that he had allegedly fled the spot, leaving the victim in a pool of blood.
The prosecution also relied on the Forensic Science Laboratory report and submitted that the victim and his family members had been receiving threats from persons connected with the accused.
On the other hand, the applicant's counsel argued that he was a young married man and the sole earning member of his family, with no prior criminal antecedents. It was submitted that the incident occurred when the applicant, complainant, and victim were highly intoxicated and that there was no intention to cause serious injury. The applicant relied on the medical records to submit that his blood alcohol content was 172 mg, while that of the victim was 177.3 mg.
It was submitted that the investigation had been completed, the charge sheet was filed on September 27, 2025, and the evidence had already been seized by the investigating agency. It was also argued that the complainant had subsequently turned hostile during the trial and was no longer supporting the prosecution's case.
However, the High Court observed that at the stage of bail it was not required to conduct a detailed examination of the prosecution evidence or determine the likelihood of conviction.
"While dealing with an application for bail, it is not to undertake a threadbare analysis of the case of the prosecution and the materials on record," Justice Pushkarna observed.
The High Court said the broad factors relevant to bail included the nature and gravity of the offence, the risk of absconding, the character of the evidence, circumstances of the accused, societal repercussions of release, and the likelihood of witness intimidation or evidence tampering. It recorded that 22 witnesses were to be examined in the case, but only the complainant had been examined, and the victim was yet to enter the witness box.
"The case is still at the initial stage, wherein the victim is yet to be examined. Therefore, any order granting bail to the applicant may have an adverse effect on the proceedings before the Trial Court, as there is a reasonable apprehension of threat to the complainant and victim," the judgment said.
It added that the submissions made by the applicant before the High Court did not constitute any change in circumstances warranting a departure from the earlier order of the Dwarka court, which had rejected his bail plea.
Dismissing the regular bail application, Justice Pushkarna clarified that the observations contained in the judgment were confined to the adjudication of the bail plea and would not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case.
Source: IANS
About Gopi
Gopi Adusumilli is a Programmer. He is the editor of SocialNews.XYZ and President of AGK Fire Inc.
He enjoys designing websites, developing mobile applications and publishing news articles on current events from various authenticated news sources.
When it comes to writing he likes to write about current world politics and Indian Movies. His future plans include developing SocialNews.XYZ into a News website that has no bias or judgment towards any.
He can be reached at gopi@socialnews.xyz