$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 4260/2025 RUPESH KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Amjad Khan & Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advs. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP. Insp. Narendra M., SI Vivek Tomar PS Sunlight Colony. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 22.07.2026 CRL.M.A.32949/2025 (Exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. BAIL APPLN. 4260/2025 3. This application has been filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [BNSS] [erstwhile Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973)] seeking regular bail in connection with FIR No.152/2023 for the offence punishable under Section 304(1) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [IPC] registered at Police Station Sultan Puri, Delhi. 4. It is brought to this Court’s notice that earlier the FIR was registered under Sections 302/201 of the IPC, however, the applicant has been charged This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/07/2026 at 11:54:02 only for offence under Section 304(1) of the IPC. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated and the prosecution has failed to appreciate the circumstances in which the incident occurred. It is submitted that the applicant, who is a taxi driver, was crossing the road, when he found that a quarrel was going on and one innocent boy was being beaten up by the mob. He, in order to help the victim, stepped out from his car to intervene and assist the victim, when the incident in question occurred. 6. Further, it is submitted that the applicant is an ex-army personnel and he himself made the PCR call, not only once but repeatedly. It is further urged that the applicant has remained in jail from inception of the case, and as per nominal roll dated 21.02.2026, he has suffered two years and six months’ incarceration. As of today, he has suffered incarceration for nearly three years. The trial would take sufficient time for completion. 7. It is pointed out that during the pendency of the proceedings, the applicant was granted interim bail on three separate occasions and, on each occasion, he scrupulously complied with all the conditions imposed by the Court and surrendered within the stipulated time. It is further submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents and there is no allegation that he attempted to influence witnesses or interfere with the course of justice while enjoying interim liberty. 8. Learned counsel further points out that although the trial has commenced, only 11 out of the total 27 prosecution witnesses have been examined and, considering the pace of the proceedings, the trial is likely to take considerable time before its conclusion. It is thus contended that continued incarceration of the applicant, who enjoys the presumption of This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/07/2026 at 11:54:02 innocence until proven guilty, would serve no useful purpose. 9. These submissions are opposed by learned APP for the State as well as the complainant who appears to be the sister of the deceased. 10. Ms. Gupta, learned APP for the State, submits that the incident occurred on 04.05.2023. Upon receipt of the PCR call, the police personnel went to the spot, by which time, injured had already been shifted to the hospital. One private vehicle Ertiga Taxi white colour was lying abandoned on the road side in damaged condition. During site inspection, blood was also found lying on the bus stand which is reported to be of the injured person. The MLC of the injured was also obtained wherein doctor described him “brought dead” and the visible injury was mentioned as “Laceration 6 X 3 CM over left side of chest”. Thereafter, FIR was registered. The investigation was carried out and the charge-sheet was filed. 11. During investigation, statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded where Mona, the sister of the deceased and the other witnesses have supported the prosecution case and they alleged that the applicant took out a knife from his pocket and stabbed the deceased on the chest, upon which, the deceased collapsed immediately and the applicant fled from the spot. The applicant in his disclosure statement has also been confessing the involvement in the crime. The weapon of the offence, i.e., knife and danda were recovered on his instance. 12. I have heard the rival submissions from the learned counsels and also perused the record. 13. The applicant states that he was crossing the Sarai Kale Khan area where he saw that one boy was beaten by many people. In his effort to intervene and to help the victim, this incident has occurred. There is no This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/07/2026 at 11:54:02 motive attributable to the applicant and the incident had occurred in the spur of moment. 14. The Supreme Court in Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.,1 has reiterated that the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is an exception, and that the presumption of innocence continues to operate until guilt is established in accordance with law. 15. The parameters governing the grant of bail have also been succinctly laid down in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee,2 wherein the Supreme Court held that while considering an application for bail, the Court is required to balance the nature of the accusation, the severity of punishment, the possibility of the accused fleeing from justice, likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, antecedents of the accused and the overall interests of justice 16. The Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI,3 has further observed that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused during trial and that pre-trial detention should not assume a punitive character. These observations were expounded as follows: “21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.” 1 (2018) 3 SCC 22 2 (2010) 14 SCC 496 3 (2012) 1 SCC 40 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/07/2026 at 11:54:02 17. More recently, in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI,4 the Supreme Court has emphasised that prolonged incarceration pending trial, particularly where the trial is not likely to conclude within a reasonable period, has to be viewed in the light of the guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. 18. The applicant has already suffered about three years’ incarceration. It is noted that out of 27 witnesses, only 11 witnesses have been examined. The trial will take substantial time. The applicant was released on three occasions, and had fully complied with all the terms and conditions. The applicant does not have any criminal antecedents. 19. Without going into the merits of the case and bearing in mind the nature of the incident, the long incarceration, and the overall circumstances of the case, this Court directs that the applicant be released on regular bail on such conditions as may be imposed by the learned Trial Court. 20. The application stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JULY 22, 2026/ab/ss 4 (2022) 10 SCC 51 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/07/2026 at 11:54:02