$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010096822026 + BAIL APPLN. 1067/2026 & CRL.M.A. 7992/2026 MANISH @ MANEESH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Siddharth Malkavia, Advocate. versus STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Naresh K. Chahar, APP with SI Yashpal, PS V.K. North. Mr. Rakesh K. Jha, Advocate for the victim’s family. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 16.09.2026 1. This application, filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [‘BNSS’] (corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), has been preferred by the applicant seeking regular bail in the case arising out of FIR No. 431/2025, registered at Police Station Vasant Kunj North, Delhi, under Sections 110/105/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [‘BNS’]. 2. Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed, and the charges framed; that the applicant has been in custody since 30.09.2025, having undergone about one year of incarceration; and that the injuries were not caused by any deadly weapon. It is contended that, considered in its proper perspective, the incident was not the result of any premeditation, nor was there any intention 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 17/09/2026 at 11:16:27 to cause the death of the deceased, and that the applicant has clean antecedents, with no other criminal case pending against him. 3. The submissions are opposed by the APP for the State, and by counsel appearing for the victim’s family, who contend that the allegations are serious, that the witnesses are yet to be examined, and that the applicant does not deserve to be admitted to regular bail. 4. I have considered the submissions made by counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the record. 5. As per the prosecution case, on 29.09.2025, a spontaneous quarrel took place when the complainant, Mool Chand, and his brother, the deceased Munna, objected to the accused persons consuming liquor in their basement and to the co-accused, Piyush, urinating near their water tank. The altercation is stated to have escalated into a physical fight between the two brothers and the accused persons, four in number, in the course of which a pipe/danda are alleged to have been used by the co-accused. The deceased sustained injuries, was admitted to hospital, and expired on 08.10.2025. 6. A perusal of the statement of Mool Chand, the injured eye-witness, indicates that, during the scuffle, the co-accused Ram Sagar is stated to have caused a danda injury to the deceased Munna, and that, thereafter, another co-accused, Piyush, used a danda/pipe and struck the deceased on the head, whereupon the deceased fell down and began to bleed. It thus appears, prima facie, that the fatal blow to the deceased is not directly attributed to the applicant. The fight appears to have taken place on the spur of the moment, over the issue of the consumption of liquor and the act of urination, and without any premeditation. It is also borne out from the record that the deceased and Mool Chand had objected, and had used initial force 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 17/09/2026 at 11:16:27 disperse the accused; that a cross-FIR has been lodged, at the instance of the accused, against Mool Chand; and that the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has been filed. 7. The parameters governing the grant of regular bail in non-bailable offences are well settled. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee,1 the Supreme Court held as follows: “9. …It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail…” 8. The object underlying the grant of bail was authoritatively explained by the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation,2 in the following terms: “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 can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon.” 9. The Supreme Court has consistently reiterated that bail is the rule and jail the exception. In Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.,3 it was observed that the grant of bail must be exercised in a judicious and compassionate manner, having regard to the presumption of innocence that attaches to every accused until guilt is established in accordance with law. 10. The duration of incarceration and the likely progress of the trial are also material considerations at the stage of bail, and cannot be treated as 1 (2010) 14 SCC 496. 2 (2012) 1 SCC 40. 3 (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 17/09/2026 at 11:16:27 subordinate merely because the offence alleged is a grave one. In State of Kerala v. Raneef,4 the Supreme Court held: “15. In deciding bail applications an important factor which should certainly be taken into consideration by the court is the delay in concluding the trial. Often this takes several years, and if the accused is denied bail but is ultimately acquitted, who will restore so many years of his life spent in custody?” 11. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, the incident appears to have arisen out of a sudden and spontaneous fight, over a issue, and without any premeditation;the fatal blow to the deceased is not directly attributed to the applicant; the injuries were not caused by any deadly weapon; and there exists a cross-FIR at the instance of the accused. The investigation stands completed and the charge-sheet has been filed, so that the applicant is no longer required for custodial interrogation. The applicant has clean antecedents, with no other criminal case pending against him, and has already undergone about one year of incarceration, with the trial likely to take considerable time to conclude. 12. Bearing in mind the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant is directed to be enlarged on regular bail in connection with FIR No. 431/2025, subject to such conditions as may be imposed by the trial Court. 13. The bail application, along with the pending application, stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J SEPTEMBER 16, 2026 tr 4 (2011) 1 SCC 784. 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 17/09/2026 at 11:16:27