$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010167282026 + BAIL APPLN. 1529/2026 LUCKY .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pradeep Chowdhary, Mr. Vikrant Chaowdhary and Mr. Gaurav Kapoor, Advocates. versus STATE GNCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Naresh K. Chahar, APP for the State. Insp. Pankaj Gulliya, PS Nabi Karim. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 17.09.2026 1. This application, filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (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. 209/2025, registered at Police Station Nabi Karim, Delhi, under Sections 103(1)/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 presence of the applicant at the time of the incident is doubtful, inasmuch as prior to the incident he had himself sustained injuries at 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 18/09/2026 at 10:56:21 hands of the deceased and had been taken to hospital; that the allegations, in substance, are against the co-accused, who is a CCL and has already been granted regular bail; that the investigation stands completed and the charges have been framed; that one of the eye-witnesses, PW-2 (Sunil), has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile, while the other eye-witness, Satish, in his statement under Section 161 of the CrPC, has not stated anything with regard to the incident in question; and that the applicant, a young person aged about 19 years, has already undergone about one year and five months of incarceration, which is wholly unwarranted. 3. The submissions are opposed by Mr. Naresh K. Chahar, APP for the State, and by the wife of the deceased, who appears through video conferencing. It is contended that, although PW-2 has turned hostile, his examination-in-chief, wherein he has supported the prosecution case, cannot be ignored; and that there is CCTV footage which would establish the presence of the applicant at the spot. 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 17.04.2025, at about 6.00 p.m., the applicant, the deceased Mahender @ Manu, and PW-2 (Sunil) were consuming liquor near Suji Hotel, Pahar Ganj, Delhi. The applicant went to procure more liquor on the deceased’s motorcycle and, in the process, is stated to have fallen and been hit by an auto-rickshaw. The deceased is alleged to have slapped the applicant and caused injuries above his left ear with a sharp object, causing bleeding. Thereupon, the applicant’s younger brother, a child in conflict with law [‘CCL’], arrived from home with a screwdriver to take revenge. The parents of the applicant are stated to have 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 10:56:21 intervened, and the applicant and the juvenile were taken towards the hospital in an auto. It is alleged that they alighted from the auto midway; that the CCL first reached the spot and stabbed the deceased with the screwdriver, leading to his death; and that the applicant arrived at the spot thereafter. 6. On a prima facie appreciation of the material on record, it appears that the fatal injuries to the deceased were caused by the CCL, with a screwdriver, and that they had already been inflicted, and the deceased had fallen, before the applicant could reach the spot. No overt act, in respect of the injuries sustained by the deceased, can, therefore, prima facie be attributed to the applicant, who is himself stated to have sustained injuries in the course of the incident. It is also relevant that the co-accused CCL, to whom the fatal act is attributed, has already been granted regular bail. 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 1 (2010) 14 SCC 496. 2 (2012) 1 SCC 40. 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 10:56:21 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. 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, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the fatal injuries to the deceased are, prima facie, attributed to the co-accused CCL, and not to the applicant, and no overt act is attributable to the applicant; the co-accused CCL has already been granted regular bail; one of the eye-witnesses has turned hostile;so that the applicant is no longer required for custodial interrogation; and the applicant, a young person aged about 19 years, has already undergone about one year and five months 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 3 (2018) 3 SCC 22. 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 18/09/2026 at 10:56:21 applicant is directed to be enlarged on regular bail in connection with FIR No. 209/2025, subject to such conditions as may be imposed by the trial Court. 13. The bail application stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J SEPTEMBER 17, 2026 tr/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 18/09/2026 at 10:56:21