New Delhi, September 25, 2026 (Yes Punjab News)
The Delhi High Court has denied regular bail to a 26-year-old man accused of attacking his friend with a sharp object during an alleged drunken altercation, after the victim suffered serious injuries that ultimately led to the surgical removal of one kidney.
Justice Mini Pushkarna, hearing the bail plea, noted the gravity of the allegations and the stage of the trial, particularly as the injured victim is yet to testify. The court also took note of the prosecution’s apprehension that key witnesses could be threatened or influenced.
The court observed that although the charge sheet had been filed, only the complainant had been examined out of 22 prosecution witnesses. The victim, who sustained the injuries, is yet to enter the witness box.
“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,” the court said.
The case stems from an FIR registered at Sector 23 Police Station in Dwarka on May 9, 2025. It was initially registered under Section 118(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), with the subsequent charge sheet invoking Sections 118(2) and 190(1) as well.
According to the prosecution, the accused, identified as Bharat Singh, and the complainant and victim were friends. On May 8, 2025, Singh allegedly called the two men to help him load goods into a truck. After consuming alcohol, the complainant and victim returned to their rented accommodation.
The prosecution alleged that Singh later called them to his house, where a scuffle broke out. During the altercation, he allegedly attacked the victim with a sharp, metal-like object. The injured man was subsequently taken to hospital.
The prosecution said the victim suffered grievous injuries to a kidney, which ultimately had to be surgically removed. It also alleged that the accused fled the spot after the assault, leaving the victim seriously injured.
Opposing the bail plea, the prosecution and counsel representing the complainant and victim submitted that the alleged assault involved a vital organ and that the accused was facing allegations including attempt to murder. They further said that the alleged knife used in the crime was recovered at the accused’s instance.
The prosecution also relied on a Forensic Science Laboratory report and told the court that the victim and his family members had allegedly received threats from persons connected with the accused. The High Court noted that the accused’s family members were also alleged to have threatened the complainant and victim with dire consequences for pursuing the case.
The accused’s counsel, however, argued that he was a young married man, the sole earning member of his family and had no previous criminal record. It was submitted that the incident occurred when the accused, complainant and victim were highly intoxicated and that there was no intention to cause serious injury.
The defence also relied on medical records showing a blood alcohol content of 172 mg for the accused and 177.3 mg for the victim. Counsel further argued that the investigation had been completed, the charge sheet was filed on September 27, 2025, and the relevant evidence had already been seized.
The defence also pointed out that the complainant had subsequently turned hostile during the trial and was no longer supporting the prosecution case.
The High Court, however, said that while deciding a bail application, it was not required to undertake a detailed examination of the prosecution evidence or assess 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 court said factors relevant to bail included the nature and gravity of the alleged offence, the possibility of the accused absconding, the character of the evidence, the circumstances of the accused, societal repercussions of release and the possibility of witness intimidation or evidence tampering.
With 22 prosecution witnesses listed and only the complainant examined so far, the court said the trial was still at an initial stage and the victim was yet to be examined.
“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.
The court also found no change in circumstances warranting a departure from the earlier decision of the Dwarka court, which had rejected Singh’s bail plea.
Justice Pushkarna dismissed the regular bail application while clarifying that the observations in the judgment were limited to deciding the bail plea and should not be treated as an opinion on the merits of the case.
FOLLOW NOW
