2 days ago
Delhi High Court Denies Bail in Kidney Removal Attack Case
The Delhi High Court decided not to release Bharat Singh on bail.
He is accused of hurting a friend during a fight after the group drank alcohol.
The injured friend’s kidney was badly damaged and had to be removed.
Prosecutors said a knife was recovered based on Singh’s information.
They also said people connected to Singh threatened witnesses.
Singh’s lawyers said he did not mean to cause serious harm and had no earlier criminal cases.
The trial is still at an early stage because only one of 22 witnesses has spoken.
The judge said protecting the witnesses was important before deciding whether Singh could be released.
The Delhi High Court denied regular bail to 26-year-old Bharat Singh, accused of attacking his friend during a drunken scuffle.
The injured victim suffered kidney damage and required surgery to remove the organ.
The court cited the seriousness of the allegations and concerns that witnesses could be threatened or influenced.
Only one of 22 prosecution witnesses has testified, while the injured victim has yet to appear before the trial court.
Singh’s lawyers argued that he was intoxicated, had no criminal record, and was the sole earner for his family.
- Who
- The Delhi High Court, Justice Mini Pushkarna, and accused Bharat Singh are involved; the case concerns Singh’s friend, who was injured.
- What
- The High Court dismissed Singh’s regular bail application in a case alleging that he attacked his friend with a sharp object, causing kidney removal.
- Where
- The alleged incident occurred at Singh’s house, and the FIR was registered at Sector 23 Police Station in Dwarka, New Delhi.
- When
- The alleged attack occurred on May 8, 2025; the FIR was registered on May 9, 2025, and the charge sheet was filed on September 27, 2025.
- Why
- The court cited the gravity of the alleged offence, the victim’s pending testimony, and a reasonable apprehension that witnesses could be threatened or influenced.
Accused’s Bail Arguments
Prosecution and Court’s Concerns
Intent and intoxication
Accused’s Bail Arguments
Singh’s counsel argued that the incident occurred while the accused, complainant, and victim were highly intoxicated, and that there was no intention to cause serious injury. The defence cited blood alcohol levels of 172 mg for Singh and 177.3 mg for the victim.
Prosecution and Court’s Concerns
The prosecution argued that Singh inflicted a serious injury to a vital organ and faced allegations including attempt to murder.
Trial and evidence
Accused’s Bail Arguments
The defence said the investigation was complete, the charge sheet had been filed, evidence had been seized, and the complainant had turned hostile.
Prosecution and Court’s Concerns
The court noted that only the complainant had testified among 22 prosecution witnesses and that the injured victim was still to enter the witness box.
Witness safety
Accused’s Bail Arguments
The defence emphasized that Singh was a young married man, the sole earning member of his family, and had no prior criminal antecedents.
Prosecution and Court’s Concerns
The prosecution and complainant’s and victim’s counsel alleged threats from people connected with Singh. The court said releasing him could adversely affect the proceedings.
Key facts
- Accused
- Bharat Singh, 26
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Judge
- Justice Mini Pushkarna
- Alleged injury
- The victim’s kidney was damaged and surgically removed.
- Trial status
- One of 22 prosecution witnesses had been examined; the injured victim had not yet testified.
- FIR date
- May 9, 2025
- Charge sheet
- Filed on September 27, 2025, with additional offences invoked under Sections 118(2) and 190(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Quotes
Justice Mini Pushkarna
Delhi High Court single-judge Bench judge who decided the bail application
“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.”
thehansindia.com
“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.”
thehansindia.com
Sources
Related news
Delhi Court Grants Interim Bail to Swatantra Bhardwaj
Delhi Court Grants Three-Week Interim Bail to Bhardwaj
Delhi High Court to Hear Swatantra Bhardwaj Arrest Plea
Supreme Court Raps Shiv Sena Corporator Over Doctors’ Assault
High Court Cancels Bail After Murder Accused’s Instagram Threats
High Court Denies Bail to Sidhu Moosewala Murder Accused
Two held for allegedly demanding Rs 3 crore from businessman
Two NDMC Employees Killed as Thar Hits Motorcycle in Delhi
Labourer Pawan Ram Killed Outside Dwarka Society After Alleged Stick Attack
Bhagwat Says India’s Dharma Drives Aid, Even To Adversaries
