$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 227/2026 MASUMA NIKHAT .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vinay Sharma and Ms. Nidhi Sharma Advocates. versus THE STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 24.07.2026 1. This application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) read with Section 480 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [BNSS] seeking regular bail in connection with FIR No.157/2010 for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) registered at Police Station Yamuna Vihar/Gokulpuri, Delhi. 2. Besides the seriousness of the allegations, this Court bears in mind the conduct of the applicant. The incident in question occurred on 13.05.2010. It is an admitted position that the applicant remained absconding and evaded the process of law for nearly fourteen years. Proceedings for her declaration as a proclaimed offender were initiated, and she was ultimately apprehended on 11.12.2024 from Jharkhand. The prosecution case reveals that 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 30/07/2026 at 14:19:43 applicant is the daughter-in-law of the deceased. The complainant, Haider Ali (since deceased), who was the husband of the deceased, had alleged in the FIR that he found his wife in a burnt condition, while the neighbours attempted to extinguish the fire. According to the prosecution, he also witnessed the applicant, along with her father, Jarrar Khan, and her brother, Mustafa, fleeing from the spot after locking the staircase. Initially, the FIR was registered under Sections 304/34 IPC; however, upon the death of the injured, the offence was altered to one under Sections 302/34 IPC. 3. The deceased died due to burn injuries sustained in the incident. The statements of the neighbouring witness’s prima facie support the prosecution case. At this stage, without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the material on record cannot be said to be wholly insufficient so as to warrant the grant of regular bail. 4. The Supreme Court in X v. State of Rajasthan & Anr1, has observed that in serious offences such as murder, once the trial has commenced, the Court should ordinarily be slow in granting bail by undertaking an assessment of the prosecution evidence or by examining discrepancies therein. It was further observed that bail on the ground of delay in trial may be justified only where such delay is not attributable to the accused. In the present case, apart from the gravity of the allegations, the applicant remained absconding for nearly fourteen years before being apprehended. Therefore, this Court finds no ground to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant. 5. In view of the aforesaid and considering the nature and seriousness of the allegation at this stage, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant 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 30/07/2026 at 14:19:43 on regular bail. 6. The application, therefore, stands dismissed. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JULY 24, 2026 Ab/ss 1 SLP(CRL) NO. 13378 OF 2024 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 30/07/2026 at 14:19:43