$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010008272026 + BAIL APPLN. 152/2026 ARMAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Anil Kumar Basoya, Mr. Akshat Bisht, Mr. Priyanshu Bidhuri & Mr. Pradeep Singh, Advocates. versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP with Insp. Veer Singh, AEKC-Crime-Sunlight Colony, ND. Ms. Azra Rehman, Mr. Zakir Rehman and Ms. Fatima Faridi, Advs. for objector. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 02.09.2026 1. The present application has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), seeking grant of regular bail in FIR No. 347/2022, registered at Police Station Jamia Nagar, Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 302, 420, 511, 467, 482, 201, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 28.08.2022 and has undergone approximately four 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 05/09/2026 at 09:45:21 years of incarceration. It is contended that there are approximately 75 witnesses, out of whom only three witnesses have been examined so far, and therefore, the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. 3. It is further submitted that, apart from certain circumstantial evidence and the disclosure statement of co-accused Sultan, there is no other material on record to establish the applicant’s complicity in the commission of the alleged offence. Applicant is a law-abiding person with no criminal antecedents. It is also contended that the applicant is suffering from chronic piles and has been advised by the doctor to undergo surgery. On this ground, the applicant was granted interim bail for a period of 30 days by the learned Trial Court, which he duly availed and surrendered within the stipulated period without violating any of the conditions imposed. 4. Additionally, learned counsel submits that Nahid Abbasi, sister of co- accused Sultan, who is alleged to be the main conspirator, has already been granted bail, and co-accused Faruk Khan has also been enlarged on regular bail. It is contended that the case of the present applicant is on an almost similar footing to that of co-accused Faruk Khan and, therefore, the applicant is also entitled to the benefit of parity. 5. These submissions are strongly opposed by Ms. Shubhi Gupta, learned APP for the State, and Ms. Azra Rehman, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the father of the deceased. It is contended that the complicity of the applicant stands established from the CCTV footage, the disclosure statement of co-accused Sultan Azim and the material collected during investigation. It is further submitted that the applicant was identified as an accomplice of Sultan Azim and, pursuant to his disclosure, was apprehended and allegedly admitted his involvement in the commission of the offence. 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 05/09/2026 at 09:45:21 6. It is further contended that the plea of parity with co-accused Faruk Khan is misconceived, as the material against the present applicant includes his alleged involvement as an accomplice in the commission of the murder. It is, therefore, submitted that the case of the present applicant is distinguishable from that of co-accused Faruk Khan and he is not entitled to the benefit of parity. 7. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 8. The facts of the case would indicate that on 14.08.2022 at around 6 PM, in front of Musa Masjid, Jamia Nagar, the deceased was shot multiple times by the assailants. The prosecution alleges that the murder was the result of a criminal conspiracy hatched by co-accused Nahid Abbasi, sister of Sultan Azim, who has been granted regular bail, and her brother Sultan Azim, who is stated to be a sharp shooter of Abdul Nasir. The motive attributed to the accused persons for the killing of the deceased was to fraudulently grab four valuable flats constructed by him. The applicant is alleged to be an associate and pillion rider on the scooty used in the commission of the offence. 9. One of the accused persons, namely, Shadab @ Saddu, has not been arrested and has been declared a proclaimed offender. The applicant and the other accused, Sultan Azim and Amir Alvi, are in custody, whereas, as stated above, Faruk Khan and Nahid Abbasi have been enlarged on regular bail. During investigation, a pistol was recovered from Amir Alvi and the ballistic report establishes the use of the said pistol in the commission of the offence. 10. The Court while enlarging Faruk Khan on regular bail has assigned 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 05/09/2026 at 09:45:21 following reasons: “11.1. The essence of the allegation against the petitioner is that he had purchased certain e-stamp papers for preparing a general power of attorney and other related documents in order to fraudulently transfer a property belonging to the deceased in favour of co-accused Nahid Abbasi; and that he had also purchased a stolen mobile phone, which he had provided to co-accused Sultan Azim through his sister Nahid Abbasi, which phone was used by Sultan Azim to extend threats to the deceased. 11.2. These allegations, as they presently stand, maybe suggestive of the offence under section 120B IPC of entering into a criminal conspiracy for forging documents to fraudulently transfer the property of the deceased in favour of the co-accused; however, at least at this stage, there appears to be no material in support of the allegation that the petitioner had also entered into a criminal conspiracy to murder Wasif Sattar Ghazi. 11.3. Chargesheet and supplementary chargesheet in the matter have been filed way back on 16.11.2022 and 09.01.2024 respectively, in which the prosecution has cited 70 witnesses, of whom only 02 have deposed so far. Evidently, the trial will take a very long time to conclude. 11.4. The petitioner’s nominal roll shows that he has suffered judicial custody of about 3.5 years; that his jail conduct has been ‘satisfactory’; that he was released on interim bail on two prior occasions in December 2024 and May 2025,with no complaint of any violation of the terms of the interim bail; and that he has no other criminal involvements. 11.5. Co-accused Nahid Abbasi has been released on regular bail by a Co-ordinate Bench vide judgement dated 27.10.2025 in BAIL.APPLN. No.1664/2025.” 11. In Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana,1 the Supreme Court has held that though parity is a relevant consideration while 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 05/09/2026 at 09:45:21 deciding an application for bail, the same is not to be applied mechanically and the Court is required to undertake a comparative assessment of the role attributed to the applicant vis-à-vis the co-accused who have already been granted bail. 12. The comparative exercise mandated in Ramesh Bhavan Rathod (supra) would indicate that the allegations against co-accused Faruk Khan and Nahid Abbasi, who have already been enlarged on regular bail, cannot be said to be qualitatively less serious than those attributed to the present applicant, as both are alleged to have been part of the conspiracy leading to the murder of the deceased, including the alleged object of fraudulently securing his properties. While the present applicant is alleged to have accompanied the co-accused on the scooty and participated in the occurrence, the prosecution case against him, insofar as his specific role in the commission of the murder is concerned, principally rests on CCTV footage and other circumstantial evidence, which would have to establish the complete chain of circumstances. In the changed factual scenario, where the aforesaid co-accused have already been enlarged on regular bail, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present applicant cannot be said to stand on a footing worse than them and is, therefore, entitled to invoke the principle of parity. 13. 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 1 (2021) 6 SCC 230 2 (2018) 3 SCC 22 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 05/09/2026 at 09:45:21 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. 14. 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. 15. 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, 3 (2010) 14 SCC 496 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 05/09/2026 at 09:45:21 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] 16. As aptly observed by division Bench of this Court in Mohd. Hakim v. State (NCT of Delhi)7, the Court must play the role of a “doctor” rather than a “coroner”, by protecting the right to a speedy trial before it is rendered illusory by prolonged incarceration, instead of recognising its violation after the constitutional injury has become irreversible. 17. Apart from the plea of parity, the present application also warrants consideration on the ground of prolonged incarceration. The applicant has already undergone approximately four years of incarceration, whereas only 3 out of the total 75 witnesses cited by the prosecution have been examined and, therefore, the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. It is also relevant that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, has been suffering from chronic piles, and was earlier released on interim bail on 07.04.2025. His jail conduct has also been reported to be satisfactory. 18. Bearing in mind the overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the applicant be enlarged on regular bail, subject to such conditions as may be imposed by the concerned trial Court. In the event the applicant attempts to adversely influence the prosecution case or otherwise interferes with the course of justice, the prosecuting agency as well as the complainant shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail. 19. Nothing stated, hereinabove, shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The observations made herein are confined solely to 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 05/09/2026 at 09:45:21 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. 20. With these observations, the application is allowed and disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J SEPTEMBER 2, 2026 ab/SA 7 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4623 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 05/09/2026 at 09:45:21