$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC011021062025 + BAIL APPLN. 4880/2025 PRATAP .....Petitioner Through: Dr. Manish Aggarwal, Ms. Archana Chaudhary, Mr. Amit Ambawat, Mr.Udit Jain, Ms. Shilpa Kumari, Ms.Namrata Sharma and Mr. Azad Singh, Advocates. versus STATE NCT DELHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for State with Insp.Mukesh, PS Kalyanpuri. Mr.S.N. Qureshi, Mr.Jitendra Kumar and Ms. Rozy, Advocates for complainant. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 17.09.2026 1. The present application is the second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicant seeking grant of regular bail in connection with FIR No. 500/2020, registered at Police Station Kalyan Puri, Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC. 2. Mr. Manish Aggarwal, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been in custody since 01.12.2020 and has undergone incarceration for nearly six years, while the trial is progressing at a protracted pace. It is submitted that out of 17 prosecution witnesses, only 7 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 19/09/2026 at 10:58:59 witnesses have been examined so far. The examination and cross- examination of the material witnesses have revealed material inconsistencies and improvements regarding the presence and involvement of the applicant. It is also submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. In these circumstances, further incarceration of the applicant would serve no useful purpose, particularly when the conclusion of the trial is not imminent. 3. Ms. Shubhi Gupta, learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that the allegations against the applicant are grave and serious in nature, involving the murder of the deceased. It is submitted that the prosecution case is supported by the statements of material witnesses, CCTV footage and the FSL report, which connects the applicant with the articles seized during investigation. Learned APP further submits that the applicant was arrested pursuant to the investigation and his involvement is also reflected in the material collected on record. It is contended that the grounds urged by learned counsel for the applicant do not dislodge the prosecution case at this stage. Accordingly, dismissal of the bail application is sought. 4. Mr. S. N. Qureshi, learned counsel for the complainant, submits that the victim’s family and prosecution witnesses have been repeatedly threatened and intimidated by the applicant, his associates and family members, in respect whereof several complaints have been made by the complainant’s family. It is further submitted that despite such complaints, no effective action has been taken by the police, resulting in two witnesses turning hostile due to the continued threats and pressure allegedly exerted upon them. He apprehends that, in the event of the applicant being released 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 19/09/2026 at 10:58:59 on bail, there is a serious likelihood of further intimidation of the witnesses and interference with the prosecution evidence. It is, therefore, submitted that the release of the applicant on bail would seriously prejudice the prosecution case and adversely affect the fair conduct of the trial. 5. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 6. The first bail application 2853/2024 of the present applicant was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court on 02.09.2024. 7. It is well settled in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan,1 that while successive bail applications are maintainable, the Court is required to consider the reasons on which the earlier application was disposed of and to examine whether any subsequent circumstances justify taking a different view. 8. In the present case, the earlier bail application preferred by the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn and was not adjudicated on merits. Even otherwise, a substantial period of nearly two years has elapsed since the disposal of the said application. Thus, there has been a material change in circumstances warranting fresh consideration of the applicant’s prayer for bail on its own merits. 9. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 30.11.2020, the deceased Virender was found injured and unconscious near a gutter at Block-5, T- Camp, Khichripur, Delhi and was taken to LBS Hospital, where he subsequently expired on 22.12.2020. The prosecution alleges that there was prior enmity between the applicant and the deceased’s family on account of an FIR under Section 354 IPC lodged against the applicant by the 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 19/09/2026 at 10:58:59 deceased’s mother, and that the applicant had pressurised them to withdraw the said FIR. 10. During investigation, PW-2 Deepak and PW-3 Amit implicated the applicant and co-accused Vishnu in the incident, while CCTV footage allegedly showed the applicant washing his hands after the incident. The FSL report records that the DNA profile of the deceased’s blood matched the biological material found on the jacket of the applicant. FIR No. 500/2020 under Sections 307/302/34 IPC was accordingly registered at PS Kalyan Puri, Delhi, and the trial is presently pending before the learned ASJ-03, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in SC No. 495/2021. 11. Vide order dated 06.08.2026, this Court directed the State to file a status report with regard to the allegations of police inaction raised by the family of the deceased. The Trial Court was also directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. 12. Vide status report filed by the State in compliance with the order dated 06.08.2026, the State has stated that necessary protection and assistance were provided to PW-2 Deepak and PW-3 Amit pursuant to the directions of the Trial Court. It is further submitted that PW-2, when examined on 10.05.2023, had largely supported the prosecution case, while PW-3, examined on 20.11.2023, had fully supported the prosecution case. The State has also disclosed that a subsequent complaint dated 28.07.2025 regarding threats was received from the mother of the deceased, pursuant to which NCR No. 41/2025 was registered on 10.08.2025. 13. The principles governing the grant of bail have been succinctly 1 (2004) 7 SCC 528 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 19/09/2026 at 10:58:59 summarised by the Supreme Court in Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.2, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee,3 Sanjay Chandra v. CBI,4 and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI,5 it has been consistently held that grant of bail is the rule and refusal an exception; that the presumption of innocence continues until conviction; and that the object of bail is to secure the presence of the accused during trial without subjecting him to unnecessary pre-trial incarceration. 14. The power to grant bail under Section 483 BNSS (erstwhile Section 439 Cr.P.C.) is undoubtedly wide, however, such discretion is required to be exercised judiciously and not as a matter of course. In Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr.6, the Supreme Court held that, while considering an application for bail, the Court is required to examine whether there exists a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed the alleged offence and, while balancing the relevant considerations, including the nature and gravity of the offence, the likelihood of the accused obstructing the proceedings of the trial or evading the course of justice, determine whether continued custody is warranted. 15. 15. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the view that the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material emerging on record, and the conduct of the applicant while in custody do not warrant his release on bail at this stage. The nominal roll reflects that the applicant has been subjected to multiple jail punishments, including for assaulting a fellow inmate, possession of prohibited articles, 2 (2018) 3 SCC 22 3 (2010) 14 SCC 496 4 (2012) 1 SCC 40 5 (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 19/09/2026 at 10:58:59 threatening jail staff, and aggressive behaviour before senior officers. The nominal roll further reflects his involvement in six other criminal proceedings, apart from the present case, out of which two are presently pending, one being at the stage of defence evidence and in the other, the chargesheet has already been filed. 16. This Court also cannot lose sight of the apprehension of interference with the prosecution evidence. The complainant’s family had alleged repeated threats and intimidation by the applicant’s family and associates, and the status report filed by the State pursuant to the order dated 06.08.2026 records that complaints regarding such threats were received, including the complaint dated 28.07.2025 which resulted in registration of NCR No. 41/2025. In these circumstances, having regard to the antecedents and conduct of the applicant, the nature of the allegations and the apprehension of further intimidation of the witnesses and family of the deceased. 17. Besides the aforesaid, PW-2 Deepak and PW-3 Amit are the material eyewitnesses to the incident. PW-2 Deepak, in his testimony, stated that he had seen the present applicant Pratap along with co-accused Vishnu holding the deceased and assaulting him with a stone. PW-3 Amit also supported the prosecution case and deposed that he had seen the present applicant washing a blood-like substance from his hands shortly after the incident. 18. This Court is not persuaded to grant regular bail to the applicant at this stage, having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material available on record, and the apprehension of interference with the 6 (2020) 2 SCC 118 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 19/09/2026 at 10:58:59 prosecution witnesses. 19. At the same time, this Court has also taken into consideration the prolonged incarceration of the applicant, who has remained in custody for approximately five years and nine months. Having regard to the aforesaid prolonged incarceration, this Court, vide order dated 06.08.2026, directed the Trial Court to expedite the proceedings and conclude the trial within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. 20. With these observations, the instant application stands dismissed. 21. However, liberty is granted to the applicant to file a fresh application seeking regular bail, in case the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period of four months in terms of the order dated 06.08.2026. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J SEPTEMBER 17, 2026 Nc/sa 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 19/09/2026 at 10:58:59