$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 252/2026 MOHD. SHAMSHAD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Counsel (appearance not given) versus THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP. Insp. Pramod Kumar along with the IO. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 10.07.2026 1. The present application has been preferred under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking grant of regular bail in FIR No.20/2023 registered at Police Station Madhu Vihar for the offences punishable under Sections 302/120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. This is the petitioner's second application for regular bail. The earlier bail application came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 01.05.2025, wherein this Court, while taking note of the material collected during investigation, was not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that subsequent to the dismissal of the first bail application, there has been a substantial change in circumstances warranting reconsideration of the petitioner's prayer. It is submitted that the petitioner has remained in judicial 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 14/07/2026 at 11:08:55 custody since 22.01.2023 and has undergone incarceration for more than three and a half years. It is further submitted that although the investigation stands concluded, the charge-sheet has already been filed and charges have been framed, out of as many as thirty-two prosecution witnesses cited by the prosecution, not even a single witness has been examined till date. Consequently, there is no likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future. 4. He further submits that the petitioner has been implicated only on the allegation of conspiracy and no overt act has been attributed to him in the FIR. The prosecution case, as emerging from the FIR, attributes the actual assault upon the deceased Tittu Gautam to co-accused Soheb @ Wanted and Rahul @ Lebra, who allegedly inflicted multiple knife blows upon the deceased. It is also contended that the petitioner has no previous criminal antecedents and undertakes to abide by all conditions that may be imposed by this Court. 5. Learned APP appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the petitioner was an integral part of the conspiracy leading to the commission of the offence. It is submitted that during investigation, material has surfaced indicating that the petitioner had actively facilitated the commission of the offence by handing over the weapon of offence to co- accused Rahul @ Lebra on the night preceding the incident. According to the prosecution, the said weapon was subsequently used in the commission of the murder. It is, therefore, submitted that considering the gravity of the allegations, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail. 6. I have heard both the parties and have perused the material placed on record. 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 14/07/2026 at 11:08:55 7. There can be no dispute that while considering a successive bail application, the Court is required to examine whether there has been any material change in circumstances after the rejection of the earlier application. The merits of the prosecution case have already been considered by this Court while declining bail vide order dated 01.05.2025. However, subsequent events, particularly prolonged incarceration and delay in commencement of trial, constitute relevant supervening circumstances which may justify reconsideration of the prayer for bail. 8. It is an admitted position that the petitioner has remained in judicial custody since 22.01.2023. The investigation has long since concluded, the charge-sheet stands filed and charges have already been framed. The prosecution proposes to examine thirty-two witnesses; however, despite the passage of considerable time, not even a single prosecution witness has been examined. There is nothing on record to indicate that the trial is likely to conclude within a reasonable period. 9. It is also not in dispute that co-accused Arshad, who has also been implicated on the allegation of being a participant in the criminal conspiracy, has already been enlarged on regular bail by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 16.02.2024. The relevant observations of the learned Trial Court while granting bail to the said co-accused read as under: - “6. On 16.01.2023, both accused persons were apprehended from Patparganj Village when they had reached there to meet a relative of CCL Shoaib @ Wanted, who was involved in this case and the weapon of offence was recovered from the roof of H. No. 126-C/2, Patparganj, New Delhi with the help of crime team. During investigation, the accused Rahul @ Lebra and Shoaib @ Wanted disclosed the name of Samsaad @ Haddi, Afazaal, Arshad, Laila @ Sohil and 2-3 persons, who were die part of conspiracy and played a vital and small role to execute the murder of Tittu Gautam. Accused Samsaad @ Haddi, Afazaal, Arshad and Rahul @ Lebra are running in JC and one CCL 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 14/07/2026 at 11:08:55 „S @ L* was arrested on 16.12.2023. It is revealed in investigation that CCTV camera was installed at A-27 Majboor Nagar, JJ Camp, New Delhi which covered the area of the gate of abandoned dispensary gate situated at Majboor Nagar, JJ Camp. Applicant; accused and other co-accused namely Rahul @ Lebra, CCL S @ H, Afazaal, CCL S @ L and S @ T went inside the dispensary and remained there for 5 minutes, then went in different directions as per their planning and the brutal murder executed by only Rahul @ Lebra and Shoaib @ Wanted in the day light and crowded place, but as per CCTV footage, all accused met prior to murder in a abandoned primary health centre, Majboor Nagar, JJ Camp and the name of applicant/accused Arshad has appeared in the statement of witnesses and the disclosure statement of accused persons and he is running in JC. The mobile phone of accused persons were taken in police possession and sent to FSL for retrieving data and the FSL result is not received.” 10. Although the prosecution seeks to distinguish the role of the present petitioner from that of co-accused Arshad by contending that the petitioner allegedly supplied the weapon of offence to the principal assailant. Whether the prosecution ultimately succeeds in establishing the allegation of conspiracy is a matter to be determined during trial on the basis of evidence led by the parties. 11. The Supreme Court in the case of Surender Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh1 has held as under: “7. Supreme Court of India in Sahil Manoj Machare v. The State of Maharashtra, Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No. 7502 of 2026, decided on 17-3-2026, was pleased to order the release of the petitioner therein, who was also arrested for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 and was in judicial custody since 1-11-2022, by holding that the right of accused to a speedy trial is enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Supreme Court observed that it was mindful of the fact that the petitioner was charged with the offence of murder, but it thereafter observed time and again that howsoever serious the crime may be, if the right to speedy trial is infringed, then the Court must consider the plea for bail appropriately. Thereafter, Supreme Court was pleased to grant the bail in that case in 1 2026 SCC OnLine HP 3543 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 14/07/2026 at 11:08:55 which the petitioner was in custody for four years, on the ground that not a single witness had been examined till the date of grant of bail. [Emphasis supplied] xxxxx 12.In many of our Judgments and on many occasions, we have said in so many words that howsoever grave the crime may be, but if the accused is denied his right of speedy trial and is languishing in jail for years together and for no fault on his part, he cannot be kept in jail for indefinite period. [Emphasis supplied] 13.In light of the said pronouncements by the Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered view that as the petitioner herein has been incarcerated for more than 5 years now, out of the total 50 witnesses, only 19 witnesses stand examined till date and as there is no possibility of the trial being concluded within some reasonable time, it would not be in the interest of justice to detain the petitioner any further in custody.” 12. The constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be rendered illusory merely because the offence alleged is grave. The object of bail is to secure the presence of the accused during trial and not to inflict a measure of punishment before guilt is established. 13. At this stage, this Court is not required to undertake a meticulous appreciation of the evidence collected during investigation. The Court is only required to satisfy itself whether continued incarceration pending trial is justified in the peculiar facts of the case. 14. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, namely, the prolonged period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, the absence of any progress in the trial despite filing of the charge-sheet, the fact that no prosecution witness has yet been examined, the grant of bail to a similarly situated co-accused, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of regular bail. 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 14/07/2026 at 11:08:55 15. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on regular bail, on such conditions, as may be imposed by the trial Court. The bail application stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JULY 10, 2026 Tr/ss 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 14/07/2026 at 11:08:55