$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 3193/2025 KRISHAN @ BAINGAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Umang Tyagi, Mr. Zuber Ali, Ms.Babli Tyagi, Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Ms. Khushi Anand and Mr. Sanyam Dahiya, Advocates. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for State. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 23.07.2026 1. The applicant seeks for regular bail in connection with the FIR bearing No. 0035/2023 registered under Section 302/120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 at PS: Rajouri Garden, Delhi. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the criminal proceedings. According to him, the applicant has been taken into custody only on the basis of the circumstantial evidence. It is stated that as per nominal roll as on 23.09.2025, he has already suffered 2 years 8 months and 7 days of incarceration and by now the period of incarceration is about 3.5 years. He 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 25/07/2026 at 11:24:42 is in custody since 17.01.2023. With respect to other two criminal cases against the applicant, it is submitted that in one case he has been acquitted and in other case he has pleaded guilty. He, thus, contend that the applicant’s continuous incarceration, bearing in mind the overall facts and circumstances, is totally unwarranted. It is further submitted that out of 37 witnesses only 11 have been examined. 3. It is submitted that the main culprit in the FIR i.e. Bharat Chawla @ Charu has already been enlarged on bail by the Trial Court vide order dated 10.07.2024. One of the accused persons is juvenile and other two including the applicant are lodged in jail. 4. The aforesaid submissions are opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 5. The family of the deceased was informed. However, no one appears on behalf of them. 6. During the pendency of this bail application, vide order date 26.02.2026, this Court had posed following questions to the prosecution: “i. What was the time-gap between the date of the alleged offence and the date of recovery of the dead body? ii. What was the location from which the dead body was recovered? iii. What was the time-gap between the date of the alleged offence and the time when the alleged weapon of offence (a blood stained gandasa) and clothes of the accused were recovered? iv. Where were the alleged weapon of offence and clothes recovered from?” 7. In response thereto, Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, learned APP has filed the following status report: “It is submitted that on 26/02/2026 Hon'ble Court passed the direction and asked about the following 4 issues. 1st ;- what was the time gap between the date of the alleged offence and the date of recovery of the dead body ? 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 25/07/2026 at 11:24:42 Ans :- on 12/01/2023 quarrel was took place between deceased Sakir Hussain and Bharat Chawala @ Charu near Punjabi baghMetro Sation at around 11 PM. On 13/01/23 eye witness Manoj Kumar Saxena met to Deceased Sakir Hussain at Rohtak Road Near Punjabi Bagh metro station at about 11:30 PM. Then deceased was on phone call about 10 minutes this conversation run. Then deceased disclosed to Manoi Kumar Saxena that today he is going on night booking in 5000 INR and name of the client Krishan Baingan and Vikki. After some time a Car No DL9CX4913 arrived and paid 2500 INR to Deceased and went out in the car. That person have a cut mark on the right side face. In the intervening night of 13-14/01/23 at about 02:00 AM the murder was took place. On 15/01/23 information received vide DD No.58 at about 16:35 Hrs regarding dead body. About 38 hours later the information was received to Police. 2nd :-What was the location from which the dead body was recovered.? Ans:- under pass/ Subway near raja garden Chownk. This under pass was closed. About 100 meter distance from Raja Garden Chownk where dead body was laying. 3rd ;-what was the time gap between the date of the alleged offence and the time when the alleged weapon of the offence (a blood stain Gandasa) and the clothes of accused were recovered. Ans:-the offence time about 1:30 AM dated 14/01/25. Applicant was wore the same clothes on 17/01/23. On 17/01/23 applicant detained from Sonepat by PS staff and SHO/ I0 Insp Ravinder Verma interrogated him and he accepted that he did murder with the help of his friends Vikki & R. then arrested at about 9:30 PM and seized the clothes around 11 PM dated 17/01/23. Gandasa was recovered from the Bharat Chawla resident on the instance of applicant on 18/01/23 around 02:00 AM. Gandasa recovered aferaround 96 hours. And clothes of applicant were recovered after 93 Hrs. 4th ;- where were the alleged weapon of offence and clothes were recover from ? Ans:- alleged weapon was recovered from Bharat Chawala resident HNo, 180 GF, Raja Garden New Delhi and clothes were recovered from PS Because he wore the same clothes.” 8. The prosecution story would indicate that on 16.01.2023 following the discovery of deceased individual, the incident was reported. A blood stained dead body lying in a public subway near the Ring Road Pink Line Metro Pillar No. 152, was found where the deceased was initially un- identified and appeared as a transgender. The deceased was later on 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 25/07/2026 at 11:24:42 identified as Shakir Hussain @ Bada Kala @ Pinky. The identification was established through the statement of witness Manoj Kumar Saxena, a resident of Raghubir Nagar, who recognized the victim from a photograph. The body showed signs of severe trauma, including multiple deep injury marks and lacerations, indicative of violent attack. 9. Accordingly, the Police carried out investigation and was of the prima facie opinion that cognizable offence of murder had been committed. The post mortem examination was conducted. The investigation revealed that a pre-planned conspiracy was hatched by the accused persons, Bharat Chawla @Charu was the main conspirator who hatched the plan to kill the victim. The applicant and the other accused persons were offered Rs. 50,000/-, a Car and his flat to facilitate the crime. It is alleged that the applicant called the deceased before the incident and the applicant was seen in the company of the deceased. The prosecution cited various witnesses including PW8 Manoj Kumar Saxena and has justified the guilt of the present applicant. 10. The observations made by the Trial Court in its order dated 10.07.2024 with respect to allegation against Bharat @ Charu are extracted as under: “13. I have heard the submissions made and carefully perused the record. As per the case of the prosecution, the applicant/accused Bharat Chawla @ Charu is the main conspirator in the commission of murder of the deceased. Admittedly, he was not physically involved in the brutal murder. The evidence qua his involvement in the offence is all circumstantial in nature and is yet to be examined on the scale of evidence led by both the parties. The applicant is a person of clean antecedents having a standing in the society considering his educational qualifications and family background. He is languishing in jail for last about 1 ½ year. Trial is likely to take a long time as the matter is still at the stage of framing of charges. The jail conduct of the applicant is satisfactory as per the nominal roll. Considering all these facts, the period of incarceration of applicant, his clean antecedents and the stage of trial, I deem it 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 25/07/2026 at 11:24:42 appropriate to grant the benefit of bail to the present applicant/accused Bharat Chawla @ Charu. Accordingly, the bail application of accused/applicant Bharat Chawla @ Charu is allowed and he is admitted to regular court bail on furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount subject to the following conditions: A) He shall join the investigation as and when called by the IO. B) He shall intimate the change of his address to the Court. C) He shall not try to contact any of the witnesses of the present case in any manner whatsoever. D) He shall not leave the territory of India without prior permission from the Court. E) He shall not indulge in any criminal activity.” 11. 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. 12. 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 13. 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 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 25/07/2026 at 11:24:42 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.” 14. 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. 15. The Court finds that the evidence of Manoj Kumar Saxena who is the prime witness of the prosecution has already been conducted. A perusal thereof would indicate that he does not fully support the case of the prosecution. There does not seem to be any other overwhelming material which would conclusively establish the complete chain of circumstances. The applicant has already suffered about 3.5 years’ incarceration. It is noted that out of 37 witnesses, only 11 witnesses have been examined. The trial will take substantial time. 16. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the application is directed to be released on regular bail subject to such conditions as may be imposed by the concerned Trial Court. 17. The bail application stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JULY 23, 2026 aks 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 25/07/2026 at 11:24:42