Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 14.01.2026
KING GOSWAMI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Hitik Malhan and Mr. Nishkarsh Bana, Advocates.
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for State
Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, Advocate for complainant.
JUDGMENT
1. The accused/applicant seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR NO. 503/2025 of PS Dayalpur for offence under Section 109(1)/3(5) BNS.
2. It appears that the accused/applicant was granted interim protection from arrest by the predecessor bench vide order dated 26.11.2025.
3. Broadly speaking, the allegation against the accused/applicant is that he called the victim/complainant de facto to the spot under the pretext of burning crackers on the night of Diwali but thereafter the complainant de facto was assaulted by co-accused Ravi and 2-3 unknown persons. The coaccused Ravi allegedly assaulted the complainant de facto with some pointed object on his waist and back. It is alleged by the complainant de facto that the accused/applicant did not save him and did not take him to the hospital. There is no other allegation against the accused/applicant.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for accused/applicant that the actual facts are different in the sense that it is the accused/applicant who was trying to save the complainant de facto and this is depicted in the video footage, which is with the IO. It is further submitted by learned counsel that coaccused Ravi has already been granted bail and the accused Pankaj has been granted anticipatory bail.
5. Learned APP on instructions of the IO submits that there is a video footage but according to the IO, that footage does not depict the incident. On being called upon to show that footage, IO submits that he has not brought the same.
6. Further, on being called upon to show the MLC, the IO has produced only the OPD card, stating that this is the MLC. On being explained as to what an MLC is, the IO specifically submits that it being the night of Diwali, the doctor did not prepare any MLC. But admittedly, the IO did not record any statement of the doctor as to why the MLC would not be prepared. More importantly, the FIR clearly mentions preparation of the MLC. It seems that MLC is being deliberately kept away from court.
7. On merits, as mentioned above, the only allegation against the accused/applicant is that he did not intervene to save the complainant de facto. No doubt, according to prosecution, it is the accused/applicant who called the complainant de facto to the spot but it is nobody’s case that there was any conspiracy hatched between the accused persons.
8. Considering the overall circumstances as described above, I find no reason to deprive the accused/applicant liberty.
9. The application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of his arrest, the accused/applicant shall 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 IO/SHO concerned. Accompanying applications also stand disposed of.
GIRISH KATHPALIA (JUDGE) JANUARY 14, 2026