The Delhi High Court has denied bail to a man accused of murder, observing that an accused cannot escape criminal liability by claiming to have been a mere spectator when the circumstances indicate his involvement in the crime.

Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav observed that CCTV footage in the case indicated that the accused appeared to have a prior understanding with the assailant, who was his son and that the latter acted with his father's approval.

“At times, inaction and being a mute spectator is also equally blameworthy as the actions are. If you stand by and stare while wrong is done, you are not neutral—you are complicit,” the Court observed.

The Court was hearing a bail application filed by one Ajeet Kumar in a murder case registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The prosecution alleged that Kumar had exhorted his son, who subsequently stabbed the deceased multiple times with a knife, leading to the victim's death.

Opposing the bail plea, the State relied on CCTV footage allegedly showing Kumar standing outside his house with a phone in his hand.

According to the prosecution, after noticing the deceased nearby, Kumar said something to his son, who then emerged from the room with a knife and attacked the victim.

The prosecution further argued that Kumar neither intervened nor attempted to stop his son from assaulting the deceased. It also pointed to tensions between the two families following the elopement of a girl from Kumar's family with the deceased's nephew.

Kumar's counsel, however, argued that he had no active role in the incident and was merely a spectator.

It was further submitted that he had been in custody since May 27, 2024, and that all eyewitnesses had been examined, leaving no possibility of their being influenced.

Rejecting the plea, the Court examined the principles governing the application of Section 34 of IPC, which deals with criminal acts done by several persons in furtherance of their common intention.

Justice Yadav emphasised that the applicability of legal principles depends on the facts of each case, observing that modern technological evidence, including CCTV footage and mobile phones, can play a significant role in criminal proceedings.

The Court noted that the accused's presence at the scene was undisputed and that the CCTV footage appeared to show him muttering something before the stabbing began.

“All these cumulatively reflect that prosecution has rightly invoked Section 34 IPC and that the applicant cannot wash of his hands by claiming that he was merely present there and was not doing anything,” the Court observed.

Concluding that the accused could not be considered for bail at this stage on the ground that he was not the actual assailant, the Court dismissed the bail plea.