$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010286622026 + BAIL APPLN. 2548/2026 IQBAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Amit Alok and Mr. Visakhonvo Natso, Advocates. versus STATE(NCT OF DELHI ) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for State. SI Himanshu, PS Paschim Vihar West. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 17.09.2026 1. The applicant, by the present application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’), seeks regular bail in connection with FIR No. 193/2026, registered at PS Paschim Vihar West, Delhi, for offences under Sections 221/132/109(1)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’). 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 10.06.2026, a team of the Anti- Auto Theft Squad, including the complainant, Ct. Akshay, laid a trap near S.S. Mota Singh Model School, Paschim Vihar, to trace a stolen Maruti Suzuki Ciaz. The applicant and co-accused Amit arrived on a motorcycle and entered the said vehicle. The complainant knocked on the window and disclosed his identity, whereupon the applicant is alleged to have opened the door, knocked him down and along with the co-accused, assaulted him, 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 18/09/2026 at 10:56:23 striking him on the head with a piece of tile. Both were overpowered and the stolen vehicle was recovered. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is submitted that the investigation stands completed and the chargesheet has been filed, that the applicant is not required for custodial interrogation and that he has suffered more than three months of incarceration. 4. The submissions are opposed by learned APP for the State. It is contended that the allegations are serious, the applicant having violently assaulted a police official in the discharge of his duty, that the role attributed to him is specific and overt and that there is an apprehension of his influencing the witnesses or absconding. It is further stated that as per the status report, the investigation had not been completed in all respects. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. 6. The parameters governing the grant of regular bail in non-bailable offences are well settled. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee1, 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…” 7. The object underlying the grant of bail was authoritatively explained by the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of 1 (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 18/09/2026 at 10:56:23 Investigation2, 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.” 8. 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. 9. In view of the aforesaid, the applicant has been in custody for more than three months and his further custodial interrogation is not required. The apprehension of the witnesses, who are largely police officials, being influenced does not outweigh the liberty of the applicant. 10. Bearing in mind the overall facts and circumstances, the applicant is directed to be released on regular bail, subject to such conditions as may be imposed by the Trial Court. 11. The application stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J SEPTEMBER 17, 2026/aks 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 18/09/2026 at 10:56:23