$~12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010089982026 + BAIL APPLN. 984/2026 SHEIKH RAMJAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Suraj Prakash Sharma, Adv. versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for the State. Insp. Manish Bhati, PS: Bhalswa Dairy. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 06.08.2026 1. The applicant, by way of the instant application, seeks regular bail in connection with FIR No.280/2019 for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”] registered at police station Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is further submitted that the applicant has undergone more than five years of incarceration. As on date, only 9 out of 25 prosecution witnesses have been examined, and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. It is also submitted that one of the co-accused, Dilshad, has already been enlarged on regular bail. Accordingly, the applicant seeks parity with the said co-accused and prays 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 10/08/2026 at 11:07:09 for grant of regular bail. 3. The application is opposed by Ms. Shubhi Gupta, learned APP appearing for the State, who submits that the case of the co-accused, Dilshad, stands on a different footing. It is contended that Dilshad was not identified by PW-3, Sheikh Akhtar, who is the prime prosecution witness. It is further submitted that, having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations and the material collected during the course of investigation against the present applicant, no case for grant of regular bail is made out. Accordingly, it is prayed that the present application be dismissed. 4. The mother and wife of the deceased, as well as PW-3, Sheikh Akhtar, are present in Court. They submit that they are represented through their counsel. Learned counsel appearing on their behalf submits that, without prejudice to their rights and contentions and subject to the final outcome of the trial, they have no objection if the applicant is enlarged on regular bail. 5. I have heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of parties and perused the record. 6. At this stage, this Court is not inclined to delve into the reasons as to why PW-3, Sheikh Akhtar, and the mother and wife of the deceased have expressed no objection to the grant of bail. The present application has been considered and adjudicated independently of their no-objection, on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record. 7. The prosecution story would indicate that PW-3 Sheikh Akhtar claims to have seen the present applicant along with co-accused Ramzan, Raees, Rafiq, Wahidul and Anwar @ Sanwar coming from the side of the jhuggi 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 10/08/2026 at 11:07:09 immediately after the incident. According to the prosecution, Anwar @ Sanwar was carrying a chopper/knife in his hand, while he and Ramzan were proclaiming that they had killed the deceased, Akash. Upon reaching the spot, PW-3 allegedly found the deceased lying in a pool of blood. The prosecution further relies upon the medical and other evidence collected during investigation to establish the involvement of the applicant. 8. All the accused persons, including the present applicant, are in judicial custody. The testimony of the material witnesses, including PW-3 Sheikh Akhtar, has already been recorded. The credibility and evidentiary value of their testimony, as well as the other evidence relied upon by the prosecution, would require a detailed appreciation at the stage of trial and cannot be conclusively examined while considering the present application for bail. 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. 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 10/08/2026 at 11:07:09 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: “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 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 10/08/2026 at 11:07:09 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] 14. Without commenting on the merits of the allegation it is undisputed that the applicant has already suffered incarceration for about 5 Years 4 Months and 22 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. Though the prosecution attributes a distinct role to the present applicant and opposes the prayer for bail, this Court is of the view that a detailed appreciation of the evidence is impermissible at this stage. The testimony of the material witnesses has already been recorded and, having regard to the prolonged period of incarceration undergone by the applicant coupled with the fact that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has made out a case for grant of regular bail. 16. Moreover, the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. The role attributed to the present applicant would ultimately have to be established by proving a complete chain of incriminating circumstances, each of which must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, so as to unerringly 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 10/08/2026 at 11:07:09 point towards the guilt of the applicant and exclude every hypothesis consistent with his innocence. 17. The law governing the appreciation of a case resting on circumstantial evidence is well crystallised. The locus classicus is Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra,6 wherein the Supreme Court formulated the five “Panchsheel” conditions that must be satisfied before guilt can be said to be established on 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.” (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. 6 (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 10/08/2026 at 11:07:09 154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.” 18. It is brought to the notice of this Court that another criminal case came to be registered against the applicant while he was on interim bail. However, it is not disputed that the investigation in the said case is still pending and no chargesheet has been filed till date. The pendency of the said case, by itself, would not be a ground to deny bail in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Nevertheless, the same is a relevant circumstance while imposing appropriate safeguards. 19. Accordingly, the present application is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on regular bail, subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the learned Trial Court to secure his presence during trial and to ensure that he does not indulge in any criminal activity. 20. The application stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J AUGUST 6, 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 10/08/2026 at 11:07:09