$~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010102502026 + BAIL APPLN. 1076/2026 ARUN KUMAR @ BAJRANGI .....Petitioner Through: Appearance not given. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for the State. Insp. Harpal Singh, PS: Defence Colony. SI Rohit, PS: Uttam Nagar. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 11.08.2026 1. By way of this application, the applicant seeks regular bail in connection with FIR No.898/2021 for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at PS Uttam Nagar, Delhi. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no evidence against him. The case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. Two of the material witnesses, namely, PW-1 and PW-4, have turned hostile, out of whom one witness is being cross-examined by the prosecution. 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 13/08/2026 at 11:00:36 3. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 29.12.2021 and, out of 32 witnesses cited by the prosecution, only 6 witnesses have been examined so far. FSL report is still awaited. In these circumstances, the trial is likely to take considerable time and the continued incarceration of the applicant would serve no useful purpose. 4. Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, learned APP for the State opposes the present bail application and submits that the allegations against the applicant are grave and serious in nature and that his role is specific and active, he having been named in the FIR as well as by the witnesses as one of the persons involved in the abduction and murder of the deceased. It is further submitted that the trial is at the stage of prosecution evidence and several witnesses are yet to be examined. Thus the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 5. Learned APP also submits that in compliance to the order dated 18.03.2026 of this Court, the family members of the deceased have been duly informed by the Investigating Officer (IO); however, none has appeared on their behalf. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 7. The prosecution story would indicate that on 27.12.2021, a complaint was received from the complainant Nargis regarding the murder of her brother Shaukat Ali. It was stated that during the night of 26.12.2021, the deceased was forcibly taken in an e-rickshaw by the accused and his associates, and brutally assaulted. He was later dumped in an unconscious condition near Supreme Model School, Uttam Nagar, leading to his death. 8. After investigation, the chargesheet was filed, and the matter is 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 13/08/2026 at 11:00:36 pending for trial at the stage of prosecution evidence. It remains undisputed that the prosecution had cited two eyewitnesses, PW1-Birju and PW4 - Devender @ Bhalle. Both of them have turned hostile. PW4 -Devender @ Bhalle is being cross-examined. The other material would at best be circumstantial evidence against the present applicant. 9. The prosecution case against the present applicant rests upon circumstantial evidence. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are required to form a complete and unbroken chain, pointing towards the guilt of the applicant and excluding every hypothesis consistent with his innocence. The law governing the appreciation of a case resting upon circumstantial evidence is well crystallised. The locus classicus is Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra,1 wherein the Supreme Court formulated the five “Panchsheel” conditions which must be satisfied before guilt can be said to be established on the basis of circumstantial evidence:- “153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may be” established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra where the observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807: SCC (Cri) p. 1047] Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a Court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.” 1 (1984) 4 SCC 116 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 13/08/2026 at 11:00:36 (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.” 10. It is trite that the object of bail is not to inflict punishment by way of pre-trial detention. In Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.,2 the Supreme Court reiterated that the presumption of innocence remains in favour of the accused and that bail is the rule, while in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee,3 the Court delineated the relevant considerations which must guide the exercise of discretion in matters of bail. The same principle was reiterated in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI,4 wherein the Supreme Court emphasised that incarceration before conviction ought not to be punitive in character. 11. More recently, in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI,5 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. 2 (2018) 3 SCC 22 3 (2010) 14 SCC 496 4 (2012) 1 SCC 40 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 13/08/2026 at 11:00:36 12. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb,6 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 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] 13. Without commenting on the merits of the allegations, it is undisputed that the applicant has already suffered incarceration for about 4 years 5 months and 19 days. The continued incarceration of the applicant, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, would have to be balanced against his fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 14. The trial is at the stage of prosecution evidence and only 6 out of the 5 (2022) 10 SCC 51 6 (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 13/08/2026 at 11:00:36 total 32 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. The trial is, therefore, not likely to conclude in the near future. There is no material on record to attribute the delay in conclusion of the trial to the applicant. 15. Bearing in mind the long incarceration of about 4 years 5 months and 19 days, the nature of the offence which is circumstantial in nature, and the fact that although two other cases are pending against the applicant, he is stated to be on bail in both the said cases, the Court is of the opinion that the applicant is entitled for grant of regular bail. 16. Accordingly, the applicant is directed to be released on regular bail on such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the concerned Trial Court. 17. Nothing stated, hereinabove, shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The observations made herein are confined solely to the adjudication of the present bail application. The Trial Court shall adjudicate the matter independently and in accordance with law, on the basis of the evidence adduced before it. 18. The application stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J AUGUST 11, 2026/p/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 13/08/2026 at 11:00:36