$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 1497/2026 PANKAJ@NARENDER .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Mr. Yashahvi S. K. Chocksey, Mr. Ankit Singh, Mr. Madhup Kumar Tiwari and Mr. Sai Shashank, Advocates. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP. Insp. Gursewak Singh, PS Sangam Vihar. Ms. Deepika Kaushik, Ms Rachna Choudhary Advocates with Complainant Mukesh and mother of the complainant Ms.Savitri Devi, Advocates. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 13.07.2026 1. This application has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (‘BNSS’) seeking regular bail in connection with FIR No. 903/2023 for offence punishable under Section 452/323/341/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) registered at Police Station Sangam Vihar. Delhi. 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 16/07/2026 at 11:12:49 2. Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, learned senior counsel for the applicant, submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. According to him, after the investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted and the trial is pending before the Court of competent jurisdiction. It is submitted that the prosecution evidence will take sufficient time in the competition of trial. 3. As of now, out of 32 witnesses only 20 witnesses have been examined and the evidence of 12 witnesses still remains. He has shown the role assigned to the applicant from the charge-sheet and indicates that the applicant has not played any significant part in the commission of the offence. 4. It is also pointed out that the applicant was the friend of Rahul and Sameer, who both are real brothers, and their sister, namely Jyoti, was married to Rakesh, who is the deceased in the instant case. It is, thus, contended that there was no motive, and if the evidence so far produced by the prosecution is considered in the right perspective, it would not entail a conviction of the applicant for the offence alleged. 5. The submissions are strongly opposed by learned APP and learned counsel who appears for the family of the deceased. They contend that the applicant is clearly responsible and his complicity is apparent from the record. 6. It is contended that in order to kill the deceased with common intention all the accused persons have assaulted him, and resultantly, Rakesh has died. It is further contended that all the witnesses so far examined have unequivocally supported the prosecution’s case. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for 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 16/07/2026 at 11:12:49 parties and have perused the record. 8. On 29.12.2023, at around 10:00 P.M., the deceased Rakesh returned to his residence in an intoxicated condition, whereupon a quarrel broke out with his wife, Jyoti. During the altercation, Rakesh is alleged to have assaulted his wife and children and attempted to open the gas cylinder pipeline, creating a situation of danger. His son Ankit thereupon contacted his maternal uncle Rahul, a co-accused, seeking help, while Rakesh’s brother Mukesh sent Rakesh away to their parents house in Sangam Vihar, Delhi. 9. Co-accused Sunny and Rahul then met the applicant Pankaj, and the three went to Rakesh’s residence, where he was not found. Ankit is then alleged to have led them to the parental house, where a scuffle took place, during which Rahul struck Rakesh with a stone, after which the accused left the spot. Rakesh’s family took him to AIIMS, where he was admitted and, after three to four days, shifted to a general ward. He subsequently suffered a sudden desaturation event leading to hypoxia and cardiac arrest, and died on 15.01.2024. A post-mortem was conducted, investigation followed, and a chargesheet was filed on 08.04.2024. 10. As per the status report filed by the State, it would appear that the CCTV footage of the place of the incident was analysed, and it was found that three people were beating the deceased. However, as of now, there does not seem to be any concrete evidence to substantiate the allegations that the present applicant has kicked the deceased by stone or by any other means. 11. In the case of Surinder Kumar v. UT, Chandigarh1 Supreme Court held that if on a sudden quarrel a person in the heat of the moment picks up 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 16/07/2026 at 11:12:49 a weapon which is handy and causes injuries out of which only one proves fatal, he would be entitled to the benefit of the exception provided he has not acted cruelly. Supreme Court held that the number of wounds caused during the occurrence in such a situation was not the decisive factor what was important was that the occurrence had taken place on account of a sudden and unpremidiated fight and the offender must have acted in a fit of anger. “…The cause of the quarrel is not relevant nor is it relevant who offered the provocation or started the assault. The number of wounds caused during the occurrence is not a decisive factor but what is important is that the occurrence must have been sudden and unpremeditated and the offender must have acted in a fit of anger. Of course, the offender must not have taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner”. 12. Accordingly, bearing in mind the overall facts and circumstances, it appears that the instant has occurred on spur of moment, and, there does not seem to be any prior motive. The present applicant happens to be the friend of Rahul and Sunny and seems to have joined them to assist Jyoti. 13. It be also noted that the investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has been filed. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicant. Only 20 witnesses out of 32 have been examined, and the trial would take sufficient time in its conclusion. As per latest nominal roll, the applicant has remained in incarceration for about 2 years 3 months and 8 days as on 08.07.2026. The evidence of the purported eye-witnesses have already been recorded. However, the veracity of the same will have to be examined by the Trial Court during the course of the trial. 14. Consideration of the report filed by the medical officer, Tihar Jail, reveals that there is a possible surgical intervention in future for haemorrhoids and the petitioner is suffering from multiple ailments 1 (1989) 2 SCC 217. 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 16/07/2026 at 11:12:49 including uncontrolled hypertension with the risk of stroke, neurological blackouts, and respiratory distress. The applicant was also earlier granted interim bail on medical gournd. 15. In view of the aforesaid, the applicant is directed to be released on regular bail subject to the conditions to be imposed by the Trial Court. 16. The application stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JULY 13, 2026 aks/nk 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 16/07/2026 at 11:12:49