Mr. Ravi v. State (Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi)
$~47 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 762/2026 &CRL.M.A. 5865/2026 MR. RAVI .....Petitioner Through:
Mr Sumeet Shokeen with Mr. Prayag D Sehrawat, Advocates.
versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through:
Ms. Priyanka Dalal, APP with SI Mitesh.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
O R D E R
% 20.02.2026 1.
Applicant seeks regular bail in a case arising out of FIR No. 510/2018 dated 16.12.2018, registered at PS Sagarpur, Delhi, for commission of offences under Section 302 of IPC and Sections 25/27 of Arms Act, 1959. 2.
Applicant is, primarily, seeking bail for the reason that that though allegations against him and the co-accused-Amit were almost similar in nature but the evidence which has been brought against his co-accused are rather graver in nature and he has been released on bail also whereas, the request of the applicant herein has been declined by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 24.12.2025.
3.
He also submits that the applicant is undergoing trial on the basis of non-existing circumstances and vague assumption and there is no circumstantial evidence or eye-witness of the alleged murder. 4.
The abovesaid order dated 24.12.2025 records that there is a CCTV footage of the incident in which the applicant herein i.e. Ravi @ Moniya, is clearly visible.
5.
When asked, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that 14 out of the cited 19 witnesses have already been examined so far and no such CCTV footage BAIL APPLN. 762/2026 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/02/2026 at 11:11:06
has been played before any witness. According to him, there is no CCTV footage at all.
6.
Such contention is refuted.
7.
To make things amply clear, let concerned witness, related to such CCTV footage, be produced before the learned Trial Court, without any further delay. 8.
Learned APP for State submits that concerned witnesses would be produced before the learned Trial Court on the date fixed i.e. 30.03.2026. 9.
In view of the above, without prejudice to his rights and contentions, learned counsel for the applicant seeks to withdraw the present application, with liberty to file it afresh, at a later stage as and when need so arises. 10.
Learned Trial Court is requested to direct presence of the concerned witnesses related to the abovesaid CCTV footage and to examine them, as expeditiously as possible and, preferably, on the date fixed i.e. 30.03.2026. 11.
The abovesaid order is being passed on the contention of the State that there exists a CCTV footage, in which the applicant is stated to be visible and that such footage is already part of the record. The abovesaid order may not be construed as if, prosecution has been given any liberty or permission to place on record any fresh material.
12.
The application stands disposed of as withdrawn. 13.
Pending application also stands disposed of.
14.
All rights and contentions of parties are reserved. 15.
A copy of this order be sent to learned Trial Court for information. MANOJ JAIN, J FEBRUARY 20, 2026/sw/sa BAIL APPLN. 762/2026 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/02/2026 at 11:11:06