$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010103442026 + BAIL APPLN. 1107/2026 GAYA PARSHAD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vineet Jain, Advocate. versus STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for State. Insp. Jagmohan, Inps. Kuldeep Singh, PS Sarai Rohilla. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMARKAURAV O R D E R % 07.08.2026 1. The applicant by way of the instant application seeks for regular bail in FIR No. 675/2022 for offence under Sections 302/34 of the IPC registered at Police Station Sarai Rohilla, Delhi. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is submitted that the applicant has been in custody since 03.11.2022 and has already undergone almost four years of incarceration. It is further submitted that the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future, inasmuch as only 6 out of the 32 prosecution witnesses have been examined till date. 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 11:08:16 3. It is further submitted that there is no evidence against the applicant. In this regard, it is pointed out that one of the alleged eye-witnesses, namely, PW-3 Sanjula, has already turned hostile, while the veracity of the other alleged eye-witness, namely, PW-4 Om Prakash Yadav, would, in any event, be a matter for consideration during the course of trial. It is, thus, contended that, having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, including the prolonged period of incarceration, and considering that the deceased was allegedly killed by a mob on suspicion of being a thief, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on regular bail. It is also submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. 4. Per contra, the aforesaid submissions are opposed by Ms. Shubhi Gupta, learned APP appearing for the State. She submits that PW-4 Om Prakash Yadav has fully supported the case of the prosecution. It is further submitted that a stick and a danda, alleged to be the weapons of offence, have been recovered and seized during the course of investigation. According to the learned APP, having regard to the gravity and seriousness of the offence, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. 5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 6. The facts of the present case reveal that the FIR came to be registered on 02.11.2022 pursuant to the receipt of information that a person, having sustained multiple injuries, was lying near Fatak No. 3, Vivekanandapuri Halt, Sarai Rohilla. The injured was immediately shifted to Hindu Rao Hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries on the same day. 7. During the course of investigation, it was found that the deceased was allegedly assaulted by a mob on the suspicion of being a thief. The present 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 11:08:16 applicant, along with the other accused persons, was found to be a part of the said mob. Upon completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused persons. The overall facts and circumstances of the case indicate that the prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence. 8. 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,1 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 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 10/08/2026 at 11:08:16 (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.” 9. It is trite that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is required to establish a complete chain of circumstances which unerringly points towards the guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with any hypothesis consistent with his innocence. Whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing such a complete chain of circumstances is a matter which would necessarily fall for consideration by the Trial Court at the stage of final adjudication. Even otherwise, the applicant has undergone a substantial period of incarceration during the pendency of the trial. 10. The Supreme Court in Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.,2 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. 11. The parameters governing the grant of bail have also been succinctly laid down in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee,3 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 2 (2018) 3 SCC 22 3 (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 11:08:16 12. The Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI,4 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.” 13. 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. 14. 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 4 (2012) 1 SCC 40 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 10/08/2026 at 11:08:16 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] 15. This Court finds that the evidence of PW-4 Om Prakash Yadav would, in any event, have to be appreciated by the learned Trial Court at the stage of final adjudication. The applicant has already undergone about four years of incarceration and there are no criminal antecedents attributed to him. It is also evident that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, inasmuch as only 6 out of the 32 prosecution witnesses have been examined till date. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that the delay in conclusion of the trial is attributable to the applicant. 16. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, 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 concerned Trial Court. 17. The application stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J AUGUST 7, 2026 Aks/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 11:08:16