The Delhi High Court observed that CDR analysis cannot be the sole basis for convicting an accused and should be tested during the trial.

The Court granted bail to the accused who had been in judicial custody since 2018 after being arrested.

A Single Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh observed, “There can be no debate on the legal proposition that evidentiary value of testimonies of witnesses or their credibility is a matter of trial and equally settled is the proposition that while granting bail the discretion has to be exercised in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course.

Advocate Himanshu Singh Shaktawat represented the petitioner, while APP Shubhi Gupta appeared for the respondent.

The accused sought regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case involving serious charges under Section 302 IPC, along with additional charges under Sections 307/120B/109 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

The accused asserted that he had been under judicial custody since 2018 and claimed to have been falsely implicated in the case. It was argued that there was no direct evidence linking him to the crime and that the prosecution's case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence.

The Court took note of the emphasis laid on the CDR analysis and the ballistic report by the prosecution and clarified that the weapon was not even recovered from the accused.

Nominal roll indicates that Applicants have been in judicial custody since 15.10.2018 and have no other cases pending against them. Both Applicants were released on interim bail but have not misused the liberty granted,” the Court remarked.

Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the application.

Cause Title: Sonu@Sam v. The State Govt. Of NCT of Delhi


Petitioner: Advocate Himanshu Singh Shaktawat

Respondent: APP Shubhi Gupta

Click here to read/download the Order