BAIL APPLN. 616/2026 $~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 616/2026 INTZAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Shahid Ali, Mr. Anwar Khalil, Md. Salman, Mr. Monis Rais, Ms. Zaheen Fatima, Md. Shahnawaz & Mr. Prateek Pacharwal, Advs. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 23.07.2026 1. This application has been filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”] seeking regular bail in connection with FIR No.66/2019 for the offence punishable under Section 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”] registered at Police Station New Usmanpur, Delhi. 2. It is contended by learned counsel appearing for the applicant that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. Co-accused has already been enlarged on bail by vide order dated 16.12.2025 in Bail Appln. No.3867/2025. There are 61 witnesses in total and only 19 witnesses have been examined. The further custody of the applicant is uncalled for and the conduct of the applicant in jail is found to be satisfactory. 3. The aforesaid submissions are opposed by learned APP for the State. 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 25/07/2026 at 11:24:23 BAIL APPLN. 616/2026 None appears on behalf of the complainant. 4. I have heard the counsels appearing on behalf of parties and perused the record. 5. The facts of the case reveal that the deceased, namely Soni @ Nidhi @ Iqra, was the second wife of the applicant. Prior to her marriage with the applicant, she had been married to one Mr. Sanjay Mishra. A missing person report in respect of the deceased was lodged by Mr. Sanjay Mishra. 6. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that the deceased had been strangulated by the applicant. It further transpired that the applicant had transported the dead body to Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Kotwali, Bijnor, for the purpose of cremation. During the investigation, Mr. Sanjay Mishra identified the dead body of the deceased. Thereafter, a post-mortem examination was conducted, which opined that the cause of death was “asphyxia due to ante-mortem strangulation.” 7. The applicant was apprehended and subjected to interrogation, during which he allegedly disclosed that on 22.01.2019, he, with the assistance of his brother, co-accused Nasir, had strangulated his wife. During the course of investigation, the CCTV footage from the relevant area was also seized, wherein the present applicant was seen carrying the dead body of the deceased, while co-accused Nasir was seen following him. 8. The co-accused, Nasir, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 16.12.2025. The relevant observations contained in paragraphs 17 to 27 of the said order are extracted hereinbelow: “17. Pertinently, his complicity is sought to be established on the basis of the disclosure statement of the main accused, the CCTV footage in which he is allegedly seen walking behind his brother, 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 25/07/2026 at 11:24:23 BAIL APPLN. 616/2026 who had his face covered and was carrying the dead body and CDRs. 18. It is, however, not disputed that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. There is no eye-witness to the commission of the alleged offence. 19. While, it is not in doubt that in certain circumstances, the circumstantial evidence is sufficient for the conviction of the accused persons, it is also settled law that when the case is based solely on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances has to be so complete that it leaves no reasonable ground for any other conclusion except for the hypothesis of guilt of the accused person. The veracity of the allegations levelled and the defence led, has to be seen after the entire evidence is led. At this stage, cannot be said with certainty that the Applicant was involved in The Court finds that the commission of the offence. 20. Admittedly, the Applicant has spent more than six years in custody. He was arrested on 22.02.2019 and but for a period of five months, when he was released on interim bail during the period of COVID-19, he has been under continuous incarceration. 21. Despite more than six years having elapsed since his arrest, the trial is still at the stage of examination of prosecution witnesses. On being pointedly asked, it is informed that only 18 out of 52 witnesses have been examined till date. In such circumstances, the trial thus is not likely to conclude in near future. 22. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb : AIR 2021 SC 712 held that once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible, and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, the courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail. 23. While it cannot be denied that the offences alleged against the applicant are heinous in nature, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Another : Crl.A.2787/2024 has observed as under: “19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime. 20. We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to 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 25/07/2026 at 11:24:23 BAIL APPLN. 616/2026 be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent the penal law may be.” 24. The continued incarceration of the applicant will result in the denial of her fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, when the trial is not likely to conclude in near future. 25. The object of Jail is to secure the appearance of the accused during the trial. The object is neither punitive nor preventive and the deprivation of liberty has been considered as a punishment. 26. It is not disputed that the Applicant was enlarged on interim bail and has not misused the liberty. The conduct of the Applicant while he was in custody, is stated to be satisfactory. 27. However, appropriate conditions ought to be put to allay the apprehension of the Applicant tampering with the evidence or evading the trial.” 9. The Supreme Court in Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.,1 has reiterated that the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is an exception, and that the presumption of innocence continues to operate until guilt is established in accordance with law. 10. The parameters governing the grant of bail have also been succinctly laid down in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee,2 wherein the Supreme Court held that while considering an application for bail, the Court is required to balance the nature of the accusation, the severity of punishment, the possibility of the accused fleeing from justice, likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, antecedents of the accused and the overall interests of justice 11. The Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI,3 has further observed that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused during trial and that pre-trial detention should not assume a punitive character. These observations were expounded as follows: 1 (2018) 3 SCC 22 2 (2010) 14 SCC 496 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 25/07/2026 at 11:24:23 BAIL APPLN. 616/2026 “21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.” 12. More recently, in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI,4 the Supreme Court has emphasised that prolonged incarceration pending trial, particularly where the trial is not likely to conclude within a reasonable period, has to be viewed in the light of the guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. 13. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb,5 held that an under trial cannot be subjected to indefinite incarceration pending trial and that, where it becomes evident that a timely conclusion of the trial is not possible and the accused has already undergone a substantial period of incarceration, constitutional courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge the accused on bail, notwithstanding the statutory restrictions governing the grant of bail. “15. This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee (Representing Under trial Prisoners) v. Union of India, it was held that under trials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to 3 (2012) 1 SCC 40 4 (2022) 10 SCC 51 5 (2021) 3 SCC 713 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 25/07/2026 at 11:24:23 BAIL APPLN. 616/2026 society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, the courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, the courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail.” [Emphasis supplied] 14. Without commenting on the merits of the allegation, it is undisputed that the applicant has already suffered incarceration for about 5 Years 7 Months and 10 days. The continued incarceration of the applicant will result in the denial of his fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 15. The trial is at the stage of prosecution evidence and only 19 out of total 61 witnesses have been examined; the trial is not likely to conclude in near future. There is no material on record to attribute the delay to the applicant. The applicant has depicted satisfactory conduct during his incarceration. He was also enlarged on interim bail from 02.06.2021 to 07.04.2023, and he has timely surrendered. 16. Though the role assigned to the present application is different, however, bearing in mind the long incarceration of about 5 Years 7 Months and 10 days and there being no likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future, the Court is of the opinion that the applicant is entitled for grant of regular bail. 17. Therefore, it is directed that he be released on regular bail on such conditions as may be imposed by the concerned trial Court. 18. Application stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JULY 23, 2026/ab/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 25/07/2026 at 11:24:23