Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Four Accused in South Delhi Wedding Brawl Case

The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to four men arrested in connection with a violent altercation at a South Delhi wedding venue, observing that the incident appeared to be sudden and not premeditated, and that continued custody was not warranted at this stage.

Justice Prateek Jalan directed the release of the petitioners subject to strict conditions. Each was ordered to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 along with one surety of the like amount.

The Court further mandated that the petitioners must join the investigation whenever required, provide their permanent addresses and active mobile numbers to the Investigating Officer, and not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

To safeguard the integrity of the ongoing proceedings, the Court imposed additional restrictions.

The petitioners were expressly prohibited from contacting the complainant or any witnesses, tampering with evidence, or committing any offence while the matter remains pending.

The case arose from an incident that took place on the intervening night of December 17–18, 2025, during a wedding function at a banquet hall in South Delhi.

According to the prosecution, a confrontation began when banquet staff attempted to prevent guests from carrying food to their vehicles, where alcohol was allegedly being consumed.

The situation reportedly escalated into a physical altercation.

During the clash, the complainant’s brother sustained a serious eye injury that resulted in permanent loss of vision in his left eye. The prosecution contended that the accused persons had acted with common intention to cause grievous hurt and opposed the grant of bail on the ground of the severity of the injury.

However, while considering the bail plea, the High Court noted that the “main assaulter,” who allegedly used decorative glass tubes to inflict the eye injury, was a different co-accused and not among the four petitioners seeking relief.

The Court observed that the material on record did not prima facie establish that these petitioners were responsible for the specific act that caused the grievous injury.

In its reasoning, the Court remarked that the incident appeared to be a “sudden and spontaneous” quarrel rather than a planned or premeditated assault. It also took into account that the petitioners had already remained in custody for approximately two months.

The Court noted the absence of any prior criminal antecedents against them.

Additionally, the Court highlighted that there was no CCTV footage capturing the actual physical assault in the parking area where the alleged attack occurred.

This factor weighed in favour of granting bail, as the evidence directly linking the petitioners to the grievous injury was not conclusively established at this stage.

Balancing the seriousness of the allegations with the principles governing grant of bail, the High Court held that further incarceration of the petitioners was not necessary for the purpose of investigation or trial.

Accordingly, it allowed the bail applications subject to the conditions imposed, while making it clear that any violation of the terms could result in cancellation of bail.

Source: ANI