Home Laws Case Laws Jagbandhu Malik v. The State (NCT of Delhi): A Critical Examination of...

Jagbandhu Malik v. The State (NCT of Delhi): A Critical Examination of Bail Jurisprudence in Circumstantial Evidence Cases

In a significant judgment delivered on January 12, 2026, the High Court of Delhi granted regular bail to Jagbandhu Malik (alias Jagga) in case FIR No. 243/2024 registered at PS CR Park. This decision, rendered by Justice Girish Kathpalia, offers valuable insights into contemporary bail jurisprudence in India and raises critical questions about the sufficiency of electronic evidence in criminal prosecutions, particularly in the context of conspiracy and theft allegations.

Case Background and Charges

Jagbandhu Malik was accused of conspiring with co-accused persons to commit theft from a residential house. According to the prosecution narrative, the applicant had infiltrated the complainant’s home under the guise of being a domestic help, thereby gaining access to the premises. Subsequently, in alleged coordination with other conspirators, he purportedly committed theft of numerous articles and cash from the house. The accused was charged under Section 306 (Theft by Clerk or Servant), Section 3(5) (conspiracy provisions), Section 61(2), and Section 317(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.^[1]

The case exemplifies a category of criminal prosecutions wherein the investigative agencies rely heavily on circumstantial evidence to establish culpability. What makes the case particularly noteworthy is the court’s critical examination of the quality and authenticity of the purported CCTV evidence presented by the prosecution—evidence that was supposed to form the cornerstone of the state’s case against the applicant.

The Arrest and Detention Details

The applicant was arrested on July 24, 2025, and had remained in custody for approximately six months at the time of the bail application hearing. During this extended period of detention, the critical investigative revelation was that no incriminating material was recovered from the accused during searches or interrogation. This absence of direct physical evidence linking the applicant to the alleged theft became a significant factor in the court’s bail assessment.^[1]

The Critical Role of Evidence Evaluation

The CCTV Footage Question

The prosecution’s case ostensibly rested on CCTV footage allegedly recorded by surveillance cameras installed outside the complainant’s residence. According to the police narrative, this footage purportedly showed the accused persons, including the applicant, walking across the road while carrying bags containing the allegedly stolen articles.^[1]

However, upon judicial scrutiny, Justice Kathpalia identified a fundamental and damaging deficiency in this evidence. The court observed that the footage presented could not have been captured by the stationary CCTV camera that was installed at the complainant’s premises. The technical impossibility lay in the following observation: the camera in the footage was itself moving along with the person depicted as the accused. This anomaly led the court to conclude that the footage was not from the installed surveillance system but rather appeared to be footage that was “specifically clicked by someone with a video camera, following the person walking across the road.”^[1]

This judicial finding raises significant questions about the evidentiary standards required under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act and the procedural requirements for admitting electronic evidence in criminal proceedings. Under settled jurisprudence, electronic records, including CCTV footage, are subject to specific authentication requirements. Courts have consistently held that electronic evidence must be admissible only if it complies with the procedural requirements outlined in Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, which mandates proper certification and authentication of the source and integrity of the recording. The prosecution’s apparent failure to meet these stringent requirements—or worse, the presentation of evidence that was manifestly not from the purported source—represented a serious breach of evidentiary standards.^[2]^[3]

Assessment of Prima Facie Case

Beyond the CCTV evidence deficiency, the court considered the overall strength of the prosecution’s case. The applicant faced the following evidentiary landscape:

No eyewitness testimony: The court expressly noted that there was no eyewitness of the alleged occurrence.^[1]
No recovery of stolen articles: Despite the allegations of theft and conspiracy, no articles or cash were recovered from the applicant’s person or possession.^[1]
No previous criminal involvement: The learned APP conceded that the applicant had no previous involvement in similar offences.^[1]

While the judgment does mention that the applicant was subsequently booked in another theft case wherein he was declared a proclaimed offender, this subsequent development was not treated as sufficient reason to deny bail in the present case.

Bail Jurisprudence and the Presumption of Innocence

The Constitutional Framework

The court’s approach in this case aligns with the well-established constitutional principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. Under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the right to personal liberty is fundamental, and deprivation of such liberty must be justified by cogent and reliable evidence. The Supreme Court has reiterated on numerous occasions that the High Court’s power to grant bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 480 of the BNSS, 2023) is to be exercised liberally in favor of an accused person, especially when the evidence against him is circumstantial and weak.^[4]

Factors Considered in Bail Determination

While the law mandates that courts consider multiple factors while deciding bail applications—including the nature and gravity of offence, likelihood of conviction, possibility of the accused absconding, chances of witness tampering, and the character and standing of the accused—the court in this case determined that the weakness of the prosecution’s evidence outweighed other considerations.^[5]

The High Court’s decision reflects a critical judicial determination that the prosecution had failed to establish even a prima facie case against the applicant based on credible, authentic evidence. The presentation of doctored or misrepresented CCTV footage suggested possible investigative negligence or, more troublingly, potential fabrication of evidence—concerns that weighed heavily in the bail analysis.

Bail Conditions Imposed

Notwithstanding the granting of bail, the court imposed reasonable conditions to ensure the applicant’s appearance before the trial court and prevent any potential witness tampering or evidence destruction. The applicant was directed to be released on bail subject to:

Personal bond: Furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000^[1]
Surety bond: Securing one surety in the like amount (Rs. 10,000)^[1]

These bail conditions were modest, reflecting the court’s assessment that the applicant did not present a significant flight risk or danger to the investigative process. The imposition of these moderate conditions, rather than more stringent requirements such as regular police reporting or deposit of substantial sums, further underscores the court’s finding that the prosecution’s case was substantially weakened.

Legal Implications and Broader Significance

Standards for Electronic Evidence

This judgment carries important implications for the admissibility of electronic evidence in Indian criminal law. The courts have consistently emphasized that electronic evidence, despite its apparent reliability and modern provenance, is subject to the same authentication and verification requirements as any other evidence. The indiscriminate acceptance of digital evidence without proper verification of its source and authenticity would constitute a significant departure from established evidentiary principles and could lead to wrongful convictions.^[3]^[6]

The case serves as a reminder that investigating agencies and prosecutors must adhere strictly to the procedural requirements when presenting electronic evidence. The mere assertion that a video or digital recording constitutes evidence of a particular incident is insufficient; the source, method of recording, chain of custody, and technical integrity must be clearly established.

Investigation and Prosecution Standards

The judgment also implicitly critiques investigative practices wherein law enforcement agencies resort to weak or dubious evidence to secure arrests. The absence of any incriminating material recovered from the applicant, combined with the presentation of manifestly problematic CCTV footage, suggests that the investigation may have been hastily concluded or that investigative shortcuts were taken.

For a case involving conspiracy—which requires demonstration of a meeting of minds and mutual agreement to commit a theft—the prosecution’s reliance on flawed electronic evidence and the absence of direct evidence of such conspiracy is particularly significant. Conspiracy charges, being of a more serious nature and requiring a higher degree of proof, demand substantiation through credible and reliable evidence.

Procedural Due Process

The court’s decision reinforces the importance of procedural due process in criminal proceedings. An accused person’s right to liberty cannot be suspended based on weak, dubious, or improperly authenticated evidence. The obligation of courts to critically examine the evidence presented by the prosecution, rather than accepting it at face value, is fundamental to the rule of law and the protection of individual rights.

Conclusion

The Jagbandhu Malik judgment represents a thoughtful and principled application of bail jurisprudence in India. By closely examining the quality and authenticity of the evidence presented by the prosecution, Justice Kathpalia’s decision demonstrates the judiciary’s commitment to upholding constitutional protections and preventing wrongful detention. The court’s critical analysis of the CCTV footage and its refusal to accept manifestly unreliable evidence is commendable and serves as a guideline for subordinate courts and investigating agencies alike.

The case underscores several critical lessons: first, that electronic evidence must undergo rigorous authentication before being relied upon in criminal prosecutions; second, that weak circumstantial evidence, particularly when unsupported by direct evidence or witness testimony, cannot justify extended pre-trial detention; and third, that the court’s responsibility to protect individual liberty is not diminished by serious charges but, rather, is enhanced in such circumstances.

As India’s criminal justice system continues to evolve under the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, decisions such as this serve to establish important precedents regarding evidence standards, investigative practices, and the judicial protection of constitutional rights. The granting of bail to Jagbandhu Malik, while perhaps not preventing his eventual trial, ensures that the presumption of innocence remains meaningful and that the burden of establishing guilt rests squarely with the prosecution, supported by reliable and authentic evidence.^[1]