[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Santosh Kumar Through Brother Parokar ... vs The State N.C.T. Of Delhi on 13 February, 2026
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 13.02.2026
+ BAIL APPLN. 3806/2024 & CRL.M.A. 31610/2024
SANTOSH KUMAR THROUGH BROTHER PAIROKAR AKASH
KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Munindra Dvivedi, Mr. Shivam
Shuvam, Mr. Naman Sharma, Mr.
Ruchir Batra and Mr. Devesh Mishra,
Advocates.
versus
THE STATE N.C.T. OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State
with Shehnaz Khan, Advocate and
IO/Inspector Baljeet Singh.
CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. The applicant/accused seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 442/2020 of
Police Station Mohan Garden for the offence under Section 302/201/34 IPC.
2. Broadly speaking, prosecution case is as follows. On 13.06.2020, a
PCR call was received regarding foul smell emanating from a flat which was
occupied by some boys from Bihar. The IO, on reaching the said flat opened
the door to find the things lying scattered and one male decomposed body
BAIL APPLN. 3806/2024 Page 1 of 4 pages
GIRISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97
626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003,
KATHPALIA
st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c
487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
covered with blanket concealed under a table. Further investigation revealed
that the deceased had been strangulated to death with the help of a computer
cord. After further investigation, the investigator arrived at the doorstep of
the accused persons namely Santosh (the present accused/applicant) and
Vicky, who according to the investigator got recovered some sound
recording equipments of the deceased. According to the prosecution, motive
to kill was money dispute on account of recording of some songs.
3. Learned counsel for accused/applicant contends that he is in custody
since June 2020 but trial has not been concluded till date. It is also
contended that there is no cogent evidence on the basis whereof the
accused/applicant is being detained. Learned counsel for accused/applicant
has also produced before me the testimony of PW7 Subhash Ram, who
allegedly witnessed the recovery of sound equipment of the deceased.
4. On the other hand, learned APP assisted by IO/Inspector Baljeet
Singh strongly opposes bail application. It is contended that there is a clear
circumstantial evidence in the form of CCTV footage which captures the
accused persons in the lane of the house of the deceased at 03:30am of
09.06.2020. It is also submitted by learned prosecutor that the auto driver,
whose services were availed by the accused persons in taking away the
sound equipment also identified the accused/applicant in the CCTV footage.
5. So far as the CCTV footage is concerned, in the status report dated
22.03.2025, prosecution has provided 13 links of google drive. But none of
BAIL APPLN. 3806/2024 Page 2 of 4 pages
GIRISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb483
5d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
KATHPALIA
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2ee
Date: 2026.02.13 17:16:24 -08'00'
those links clearly captures face of either of the accused persons. Merely
because in police interrogation, a witness states that he identifies the accused
persons in the CCTV footage, the court cannot believe that without seeing
the footage itself. In the footage played in court, the only thing visible is the
back of two persons walking across the lane and a TSR entering the lane and
stopping outside a gate, but neither faces of any of those persons is visible
nor the TSR number is visible, nor even the lane depicted in the footage is
identifiable.
6. Further, as mentioned above, PW7 Subhash Ram, who allegedly
witnessed the recovery of sound equipment of the deceased did not support
prosecution in his testimony. Rather, even PW8 Vijay Mehto, the alleged
auto driver did not support prosecution.
7. In response to a specific query, it is stated by the IO that the computer
cord allegedly recovered as a weapon of offence was not shown to the
doctor for opinion as regards tallying the same with the ligature marks found
on the deceased. Rather, the post-mortem report, which also is relied upon
by prosecution states the time of death as one week prior to 15.06.2020,
which prima facie, does not explain the alleged killing of midnight dated
09.06.2020.
8. Of course on all these aspects, trial court shall arrive at independent
findings after conclusion of trial. But for present purposes, I do not find any
sound reason to allow further detention of the accused/applicant.
BAIL APPLN. 3806/2024 Page 3 of 4 pages
GIRISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb48
35d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
KATHPALIA
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2
eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
9. Therefore, the bail application is allowed and 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.
10. A copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the concerned Jail
Superintendent for informing the accused/applicant.
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
GIRISH 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4a
fec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626ca
cca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID -
KATHPALIA
7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5
d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c48796
5ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.02.13 17:16:52 -08'00'
GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 13, 2026/ry
BAIL APPLN. 3806/2024 Page 4 of 4 pages
