A Sessions Court in Dehradun has granted bail to a 20-year-old law student accused in a case relating to the death of a student following an alleged group assault, observing that the prosecution’s identification of the accused solely on the basis of CCTV footage depicting a person wearing a black shirt, black trousers and a black mask appeared doubtful at the present stage.

The accused was booked under Sections 103(1), 191(2), 3(5) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) in connection with an incident that occurred on March 23, 2026, near Baba Rasoi in Dehradun, where the victim allegedly sustained serious head injuries during an assault by a group of students and later succumbed to his injuries during treatment.

Also Read ‘Compensation Can be Recovered from Any Tortfeasor in Accident by Composite Negligence’; Gujarat HC Orders ‘Pay & Recover’ for Death of Gratuitous Passenger

The defence contended that the accused had been falsely implicated and was not present at the scene of the incident. It argued that the identification of the accused through CCTV footage was inherently unreliable because the individual in the footage was wearing a black mask, making facial identification impossible. The defence also pointed out that several co-accused had already been granted bail or interim protection by the trial court and the Uttarakhand High Court.

The prosecution opposed the bail plea, submitting that eyewitnesses had identified the accused and that the CCTV footage corroborated his involvement in the assault. It further argued that the accused, being a resident of another State, could abscond or influence the investigation if released on bail.

Also Read BCI Issues Social Media Guidelines for Lawyers, Prohibits Courtroom Reels, Sensational Clips, Clickbait Guarantees, AI Deepfakes

After considering the material on record, the Court observed that the prosecution’s identification of the accused through CCTV footage required closer scrutiny, particularly since the person shown in the footage was wearing a mask. The Court also noted that the charge sheet had already been filed, the accused had remained in custody since March 28, 2026, had no disclosed criminal antecedents, and that similarly placed co-accused had already secured bail.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Sessions Court held that the accused had made out a case for bail and directed his release on furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 along with two sureties of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the trial court.