$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010216182026 + BAIL APPLN. 1890/2026 BOBBY (IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY) ......Petitioner Through: Mr. Nikhil Pillai, Ms. Malvi and Mr.Naman, Advocates. versus THE STATE THROUGH THE SHO PS GOVINDPURI ......Respondent Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for State with SI Yashveer Sharma, PS Govindpuri. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 14.08.2026 1. By way of the instant application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) [corresponding Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure], the applicant seeks for grant of regular bail in relation to FIR No.572/2022 registered at PS Govind Puri, Delhi qua the offence punishable under Section 302/394/397/201/413/411/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. According to him, there are material contradictions in the testimony of eye-witness PW-2. He also submits that a bare perusal of testimony of PW-2 would indicate that he was not an eye-witness and has been planted as an eye-witness by 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 17/08/2026 at 10:58:00 prosecution. He further submits that there is no allegation of causing any injury to the deceased. The link between the incident and the applicant’s arrest is completely missing. There is no corroborating material to indicate on what basis the applicant was apprehended five hours after the incident. Learned counsel has emphasized the various weaknesses in the prosecution’s case. He also submits that, notwithstanding the aforesaid aspect, the applicant is entitled to regular bail solely on the ground of long incarceration. The applicant has no other criminal antecedents and has already suffered four years of incarceration. 3. Submissions made on behalf of the applicant are vehemently opposed by learned APP for the State. She contends that the deceased family was informed, however, no one has appeared. She also submits that the prosecution case would clearly establish the applicant’s complicity. According to her, the evidence of PW-2 is unequivocal, which clearly states that the applicant was seen at the time of the incident searching the deceased’s pant and had robbed him of his mobile phone and wallet. She thus submits that, bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegations, the applicant is not entitled to regular bail. 4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. 5. From the record, it can be seen that there are five accused persons, two of whom are Child in Conflict (‘CCLs’). Out of three remaining adult accused, co-accused Jeetu has been granted bail. Charges against the said co-accused Jeetu has been framed for an offence under Section 413 of the IPC. It is submitted that the robbed items were recovered from Jeetu, and he was not charged with any other offence. Two other accused persons namely 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 17/08/2026 at 10:58:00 Arif and the present applicant, remain in jail. 6. The testimony of PW-2 would indicate that co-accused Arif stabbed the deceased with knife, whereas, the present applicant was searching the deceased’s pant and had robbed him of his mobile phone and wallet. The overall facts and circumstances coupled with the alleged contradictions in the testimony of PW-2, this Court finds that meticulous examination of all these purported inconsistencies are a matter of the trial, the applicant can nonetheless be enlarged on bail. 7. The principles governing the grant of bail has also been succinctly laid down in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee,1 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. 8. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb,2 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 1 (2010) 14 SCC 496. 2 (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 17/08/2026 at 10:58:00 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) 9. Further, the Supreme Court in Arvind Dham v. Enforcement Directorate3, has emphasized that Article 21 of the Constitution of India supersedes the gravity and nature of offense when deciding bail, especially in cases of prolonged incarceration. The relevant para 15 of the said judgement is extracted as under: - “15. …. It is well settled that if the State or any prosecuting agency including, the court, concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused, to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime. The aforesaid proposition was quoted with approval by another two-Judge Bench of this Court and it was held that long period of incarceration for around 17 months and the trial not even having commenced, the appellant in that case has been deprived of his right to speedy trial.” (Emphasis Supplied) 10. Without commenting on the merits of the allegations, given that the applicant has suffered four years of incarceration, had no other criminal antecedents and considering the inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence as well as the fact that the stab injury is attributed to co-accused Arif. The 3 2026 SCC OnLine SC 30. 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 17/08/2026 at 10:58:00 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. 11. Bearing in mind the overall facts and circumstances, as well as the principles governing the grant of bail, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the instant application. Accordingly, the applicant is allowed to be released on bail on such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the concerned trial Court. 12. The application stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J AUGUST 14, 2026 Nc/Ad 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 17/08/2026 at 10:58:00