$~13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 1609/2026 and CRL.M.A. 12921/2026 ANJALI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Shrikant Sharma and Mr. Rishu Lal Karan, Advocates. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP. SI Anil, PS Seemapuri. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 13.07.2026 1. By the way of the present application the applicant seeks for regular bail in connection with FIR No. 148/2018 for offence punishable under Sections 302/392/397/411/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) registered at PS: Seema Puri, New Delhi culminating into the Session Case No. 330/2018. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and she has been falsely implicated. The applicant is a female aged about 38 years and has no criminal antecedents. It is further submitted that the applicant is under incarceration since 07.03.2018 except for the period she was granted bail by the High Powered Committee during the COVID 19. 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 17/07/2026 at 10:56:44 3. Learned counsel submits that out of 36 witnesses only 14 witnesses have been examined and the trial will take long time in its competition. 4. The allegations are strongly opposed by learned APP. It is stated that the victim’s family was also served. However, no one appears on behalf of the victim. 5. Learned APP also submits that as of now all the witnesses who have been examined, have unequivocally supported the prosecution’s case and the applicant hatched the conspiracy with co-accused Sajid and both of them with common intention have killed Devi Dayal @ Devilal, who was deployed as Security Guard in Bal convent Public School, Old Seemapuri. According to learned APP, bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation, the petitioner is not entitled for bail. 6. As per the prosecution case, on 03.03.2018, the applicant and the deceased, Devi Dayal, had consumed alcohol together. It is alleged that the applicant had conspired with co-accused Sajid to eliminate the deceased, who was allegedly teasing her. In furtherance of the said conspiracy, the applicant is stated to have sent the deceased outside on the pretext of purchasing a cold drink, during which time Sajid allegedly entered the school premises where the deceased was employed as a security guard and waited on the first-floor balcony. Thereafter, when the deceased returned and was under the influence of alcohol, Sajid allegedly assaulted him with an iron rod and inflicted injuries by cutting the veins of his wrists. 7. It is further alleged that Sajid removed cash amounting to ₹65,000/- and two mobile phones belonging to the deceased. During investigation, a sum of ₹26,000/-, a blood-stained iron rod, a paper cutter blade and blood- stained clothes were allegedly recovered from co-accused Sajid. 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 17/07/2026 at 10:56:44 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 9. As per the latest nominal roll dated 10.07.2026, the applicant has already undergone 6 years 5 months and 1 day of incarceration. The long incarceration and no criminal antecedents itself is sufficient to admit the applicant on regular bail. However, for the sake of completeness, the Court has also considered the overall facts and circumstances under which the offence is allegedly committed. 10. In Sahil Manoj Machare v. State of Maharashtra1, the Supreme Court observed that the bail was granted under Sections 302/34 IPC to a person in custody for nearly four years where not a single witness had been examined despite the framing of charge, the Court holding that the constitutional guarantee of speedy trial cannot be sacrificed merely because the accusation is grave in nature. 11. In Kamal @ Kamal Choudhary v. State of M.P2, bail was granted in a matter that included Section 302 IPC after 4 years 8 months of custody, expressly considering the long duration of incarceration, notwithstanding that the same accused’s earlier bail applications had been dismissed by the Sessions Court, the High Court, and, on withdrawal, by the Supreme Court itself. Additionally, in Ram Saran Pal v. State of U.P.3, the Supreme Court, on facts involving an accused who had remained in custody for six years on a case that included Section 302 IPC, held that he could not be made to continue in incarceration for a further period without the adjudication of his case being brought to finality. 1 2026 SCC OnLine SC 810 2 SLP (Crl.) No. 808/2025 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 17/07/2026 at 10:56:44 12. It is noticed that there are only two public witnesses namely Balbir S/o Ram Kishan and Mithila W/o Vikram Singh, both of them have already been examined before the Trial Court. Prima facie, there does not appear to be any eye-witness to the occurrence. The prosecution case itself attributes the overt act of assault with the iron rod to co-accused Sajid. At this stage the court finds that the evidence material to the applicant’s role is already before the Trial Court and, therefore, the possibility of the applicant influencing the said witnesses is substantially diminished. 13. Accordingly, in view of the circumstances and looking at the period of incarceration already suffered by the applicant and also that the out of 36 witnesses only 14 witnesses have been examined and the trial will take long time in its competition, the applicant is admitted to regular bail on such conditions as may be imposed by the Trial Court. 14. The application, along with pending application, stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JULY 13, 2026 Aks/ss 3 (2018) 13 SCC 260 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 17/07/2026 at 10:56:44