$~16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 613/2026 HEMANT KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Parmeet Singh, Mr. Saurabh Malik, Mr. Kartik Jain and Mr. Sarthak Pandey, Advs. versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for the State. SI Vijay Pal and SI Deepak, PS: Barakhamba Road. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 22.07.2026 1. By way of the present application, the applicant seeks regular bail in connection with FIR No.115/2022 for the offences punishable under Section 328/381/411/419/201/120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at police station Barakhamba Road, Delhi. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant matter. There is no material to prove his guilty, however, it is pointed out that there are three persons, one of the accused persons, namely, Komal Singh was granted bail on 06.10.2022, other accused, namely, Pradeep Kumar has been enlarged on regular bail by the Supreme Court on 06.10.2025 and the applicant is 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 23/07/2026 at 11:36:25 only accused who is in jail. 3. The application is opposed by Ms. Shubhi Gupta, learned APP for the State and she submits that the Supreme Court has considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case and noted that the role assigned to Pradeep Kumar is lessor than the role assigned to the present applicant. She submits that the allegations are serious and bearing in mind the overall material collected by the prosecution, the applicant is not entitled to enlarge for regular bail. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 5. The prosecution story would indicate that during the intervening night on 17-18 September, 2022, the police received an intimation regarding theft at House No.08, KG Marg, New Delhi by the servant. The police party reached the spot and met the complainant- Mrs. Yogesh Sikand. On the information gathered from the complainant, the applicant was apprehended. 6. It was informed to the police that the present applicant namely, Hemant Kumar @ H. K. @ Lavkush, was working as a servant and he made tea in the morning which was taken by the complainant’s husband. He became unconscious and thereafter, he was shifted to the hospital and when they came back at Home, they found that all rooms and almirahas were scattered. Their servant was also missing. They found that their gold chain and other articles got missing. After FIR, the investigation was carried out. Chargesheet was submitted. 7. The applicant is in jail since 24.09.2022 and has already suffered about 3 (three year) 10 months of incarceration. Except, one criminal case, where the applicant tried as juvenile, there is no other criminal case pending 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 23/07/2026 at 11:36:25 against him. 8. The Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, has made following pertinent observations: “4. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the maximum sentence for the offences for which the appellant is being tried is 10 years. By now, he has suffered incarceration of over 3 years pending trial and the trial is completion. It has also been submitted that insofar as the offence punishable under Section 328 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is concerned, though may be made out against the co-accused Lavkush. 5. The Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute that the appellant has suffered incarceration of over 3 years pending trial. 6.Having regard to the facts of the case as also long incarceration suffered by the appellant pending trial, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled to be released on bail, pending trial. 7. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The order passed by the High Court rejecting the bail prayer of the appellant is set aside. 8.The appellate shall be released on bail on such terms and conditions as the trial court may deem fit to impose in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 9. Even otherwise, if the entire role of the applicant is compared to the role assigned to the Pradeep Kumar, the same is almost similar. They both were found on the same location as per the prosecution story. They were in touch with each other. The only distinction between the allegation against Hemant Kumar @ H. K. @ Lavkush and Pradeep Kumar was of Section 328 of the IPC. 10. Out of 46 witnesses, only 17 have been examined. The delay is not attributable to the applicant. 11. Bearing in mind the facts and circumstances of the present case, and the long incarceration of the applicant, the applicant is directed to be released on regular bail subject to the conditions as may be imposed by the concerned trial Court. 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 23/07/2026 at 11:36:25 12. Application stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JULY 22, 2026/p 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 23/07/2026 at 11:36:25