$~12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010037912026 + BAIL APPLN. 507/2026 SAURAV @ PALI .....Petitioner Through: Adv. (appearance not given) versus STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 11.08.2026 1. This application has been filed under Section 483 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) seeking regular bail in connection with FIR No. 713/2024, dated 13.10.2024, registered at Police Station Subhash Place, Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”). 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case, being a mere associate of the main accused Manish @ Lantu, to whom the act of stabbing is attributed. It is submitted that the applicant is in judicial custody since 13.10.2024 and has, as on date, undergone incarceration of almost 2 years; that investigation stands completed, and the chargesheet has been filed, the applicant not being required for further investigation. 3. It is further submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal 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 11:01:24 antecedents; and that his role, as borne out by the prosecution’s own case, is lesser than that of the co-accused Manish @ Lantu, who has since been enlarged on regular bail by the Trial Court vide order dated 10.08.2026. It is contended that the impugned order dated 08.01.2026 proceeds on the sole apprehension that the applicant may threaten the injured witness, who is yet to be examined, an apprehension that, it is submitted, is speculative and unsupported by any instance of intimidation or interference attributed to the applicant at any stage since his arrest. 4. Mr. Shoaib Haider, learned APP appearing for the State, opposes the present application on the ground that the offence alleged against the applicant is grave and serious in nature, the injuries caused to both victims being grievous, and submits that there remains a possibility of the applicant threatening the witnesses who are yet to be examined. 5. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and has perused the record. 6. The impugned order dated 08.01.2026 records that this was the applicant’s third application for regular bail before the Trial Court, the second such application having been dismissed on 29.08.2025, and that the sole ground weighing with the Trial Court in declining bail was the apprehension that the applicant, if released, may threaten the injured witness, who was yet to be examined. This Court finds that the said apprehension, howsoever legitimately entertained by the Trial Court at that stage, remains unsupported by any material on record indicating an actual instance of threat, intimidation, or attempt to influence any witness by the applicant at any point during his incarceration since 13.10.2024. The chargesheet stands filed, and the applicant is not required for further 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 11:01:24 investigation. In these circumstances, an apprehension of this nature is a matter that can ordinarily be addressed through the imposition of appropriate conditions upon release, rather than by way of continued incarceration for an indefinite period. 7. The absence of any previous criminal antecedent, coupled with the applicant’s stated personal circumstance of being the sole caregiver of his aged grandmother following the death of his parents, is a further factor that this Court may legitimately weigh, though not as determinative in itself, in the overall assessment of the application. 8. Paragraph 9 of the Trial Court order dated 10.08.2026 of co-accused Manish @ Lantu is extracted as under: “9. In the present case, upon perusal of the order-sheets, this Court finds that the delay in recording the testimony of the complainant/injured material witnesses is not attributable to the applicant/accused. Repeated non-appearance of such witnesses, despite opportunities granted by the Trial Court, cannot be permitted to operate to the prejudice of the accused by keeping him incarcerated for an indefinite period. In these circumstances, the continued detention of the applicant would be inconsistent with the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial under Article 21 and, therefore, the said circumstance weighs substantially in favour of grant of bail.” 9. Insofar as the comparative role of the applicant is concerned, the same remains, on the prosecution’s own showing, lesser than that of the main accused Manish @ Lantu. Paragraph 3 of the said order records the case of the prosecution thus: “3. The case of prosecution is as follows. The case arose from a stabbing incident in which two persons, namely Harsh and Abhishek, sustained injuries. Injured Abhishek stated during investigation that he had gone to Chhat Puja Park, Shakarpur, along with his cousin Harsh to attend a Ravan Dahan programme. In the crowd, his shoulder accidently collided with a boy, following which an altercation took place. The said boy called his associates, including Saurav @ Pali and Manish @ Lantu (applicant/accused herein), who allegedly had a prior grudge against 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 11:01:24 Abhishek. They allegedly assaulted Abhishek and Harsh, and Manish @ Lantu (applicant/accused herein) stabbed Abhishek in the stomach and Harsh at several places with a sharp-edged knife, allegedly with an intention to kill them. Both the victims, Abhishek and Harsh, suffered lacerated wounds. The nature of injuries was opined to be grievous in respect of both injured persons.” 10. Insofar as the ground of prolonged incarceration is concerned, it is well settled that a constitutional court is not denuded of the power to grant bail merely on account of the gravity of the allegations, once it is shown that the right to a speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution stands infringed. The Supreme Court, in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb1, while considering the effect of prolonged incarceration on an undertrial, held as under:- “17. It is thus clear to us that the presence of statutory restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA per se does not oust the ability of the constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution. Indeed, both the restrictions under a statute as well as the powers exercisable under constitutional jurisdiction can be well harmonised. Whereas at commencement of proceedings, the courts are expected to appreciate the legislative policy against grant of bail but the rigours of such provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence.” 11. The above principle applies with greater force to an accused facing prosecution under the ordinary provisions of the BNS, unaided by any special statutory embargo on bail such as the one considered in K.A. Najeeb (supra). The Supreme Court has reiterated that howsoever grave the accusation, prolonged incarceration unaccompanied by meaningful progress in trial cannot be countenanced. In Sahil Manoj Machare v. State of 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 11:01:24 Maharashtra2, while granting bail the Supreme Court observed: “We are mindful of the fact that the petitioner is charged with the offence of murder but time and again, we have said that howsoever serious the crime may be, if the right of speedy trial is infringed, then the Court must consider the plea for bail appropriately.” 12. In the present case, the applicant has remained in judicial custody since 13.10.2024, i.e., for a period of almost 2 years. Investigation stands completed and the chargesheet has been filed; the applicant is not required for further investigation. As is evident from the order sheets, the recording of the testimony of the injured witness has been repeatedly deferred on account of the witness’s own non-service and non-appearance, first on 29.07.2025 on account of unserved summons, thereafter on 19.09.2025 despite service, necessitating bailable warrants, and again on 02.12.2025 on account of summons remaining unserved i.e., circumstances in no manner attributable to the applicant. Applying the ratio in K.A. Najeeb (supra) and Sahil Manoj Machare (supra), the continued incarceration of the applicant, in the face of a trial that has failed to progress for reasons extraneous to him, cannot be sustained consistently with Article 21 of the Constitution. 13. Insofar as the ground of parity is concerned, it is equally well settled that parity is a relevant, though not a mechanical or determinative, consideration in bail jurisprudence, and that it must be tested against the comparative role and culpability of the accused persons rather than being invoked as a matter of course. The Supreme Court, in Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav v. CBI3, has held that while parity with a co-accused is a 1 (2021) 3 SCC 713. 2 2026 SCC OnLine SC 810. 3 (2007) 1 SCC 70. 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 11:01:24 factor a court may legitimately weigh in a bail application, it is the comparative role attributed to each accused in the alleged offence, and not the mere factum of a co-accused’s release, that must guide the exercise of discretion. Where, however, the co-accused enjoying an equal or graver role stands enlarged on bail on grounds that apply with equal or greater force to the applicant, the plea of parity is made out. 14. In the present case, the co-accused Manish @ Lantu, to whom the prosecution attributes the overt act of stabbing both injured persons with the weapon of offence, has already been enlarged on regular bail by the Trial Court vide order dated 10.08.2026, inter alia on the ground that the delay in trial was not attributable to him and that his continued detention would be inconsistent with the guarantee of a speedy trial under Article 21. The role assigned to the applicant is, on the prosecution’s own case, lesser than that of Manish @ Lantu. Where the co-accused bearing the graver role stands enlarged on bail on grounds equally applicable to the applicant, the applicant cannot be treated differently merely because he too was named as a member of the group. The ground of parity, therefore, squarely avails the applicant. 15. Bearing in mind the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant is directed to be enlarged on regular bail on such conditions as may be imposed by the Trial Court. 16. The application stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J AUGUST 11, 2026 Ab/nk 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 11:01:24