In Bhanu @ Kunal vs. State of Govt. of NCT of Delhi, the Delhi High Court dismissed a regular bail application filed by an accused charged with murder under the IPC and the Arms Act. Justice Girish Kathpalia ruled that the applicant was not entitled to parity with a co-accused (Neeraj) who had previously been granted bail, as newly reviewed CCTV footage established the applicant’s active and continuous involvement at the crime scene. The Court found that while the co-accused only allegedly provided the location of the deceased, the applicant accompanied the attackers and was visible in the footage during the fatal stabbing, making his role far more serious.
1. Factual Background and Allegations
The case arises from the murder of Amit @ Bewda, which occurred on the night of October 26-27, 2023. A police officer patrolling the area saw a Child in Conflict with Law (CCL) fleeing with a knife; shortly after, the dead body of the victim was discovered with multiple stab wounds to the face, neck, chest, and stomach. The CCL subsequently surrendered at a police station with blood-stained hands, confessing that he and his friend Akash had committed the murder.
2. Role of the Applicant
The investigation revealed that the applicant was informed about the victim’s location by a co-accused named Neeraj. The applicant then allegedly accompanied the CCL and another co-accused, Akash, to the specific location where the stabbing took place.
3. The Claim of Parity
The applicant sought bail primarily on the ground of parity, noting that co-accused Neeraj had been granted bail by the High Court in January 2026. The defense argued that the Court had previously expressed doubts about the prosecution’s conspiracy theory, specifically questioning why a conspirator would voluntarily surrender to the police with a weapon and blood-stained hands.
4. Court’s Analysis of CCTV Evidence
Justice Kathpalia distinguished the applicant’s case from Neeraj’s based on CCTV footage that had not been presented during Neeraj’s hearing. The footage established a clear timeline of events:
- The applicant and co-accused Akash were seen entering the lane and calling the CCL, who then met them.
- When the stabbing began at approximately 03:52:00 (CCTV time), the applicant was visible in the footage from a different camera.
- The footage showed the attackers (Akash and the CCL) returning from the act with the knife in hand.
5. Distinction from Co-Accused
The Court noted that in Neeraj’s case, there was no material to show he knew the information he provided regarding the victim’s location would result in a murder. In contrast, the applicant’s role was characterized as “far more serious” because the evidence placed him physically with the attackers immediately before and during the crime.
6. Final Conclusion
Given the seriousness of the offence and the incriminating nature of the CCTV footage showing continuous involvement, the Court determined it was not a fit case for bail. The bail application was dismissed, with the Court clarifying that its observations were limited to the bail proceedings and should not prejudice the final trial.
2026 DHC 5486
Bhanu @ Kunal vs. State of Govt. of NCT of Delhi(D.O.J. 09.07.2026)
