$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010195682026 + BAIL APPLN. 1742/2026 SANDEEP .....Petitioner Through: Appearance not given. versus NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State. Ms. Anushkaa Arora, (DHCLSC) Advocate for the complainant with complainant in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 16.09.2026 1. By way of this application, the applicant seeks regular bail in connection with FIR No.230/2022 for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 27 of Arms Act, 1959 registered at police station Sangam Vihar, Delhi. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The applicant has neither used any weapon nor caused any injury. There is no allegation against him, except that he was the driver of the scooty on which two other accused persons were seated, who allegedly caused the gunshot injury to Hakim Singh, who subsequently died. It is also contended that there are 47 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 10:55:28 witnesses, out of whom, only 07 have been examined. The trial would, therefore, take sufficient time to conclude. 3. The aforesaid submissions are opposed by Mr. Mukesh Kumar, learned APP for the State, and Ms. Anushkaa Arora, learned counsel appearing for the complainant along with the complainant. Both of them contend that the delay is not attributable to the prosecution and, instead, the applicant himself is responsible for the same. It is contended that the applicant was earlier declared a Proclaimed Offender [PO] and thereafter, was arrested. The role of the applicant is clearly seen from the CCTV footage as well as the statements of the other material witnesses, who have clearly disclosed that the applicant was present at the spot where the incident had occurred. It is contended that the applicant carried two other assailants to the spot. The common intention, therefore, is fully established. It is also further submitted that the eyewitness, PW-3 Rahul, has fully supported the prosecution case. 4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the record. 5. The applicant, having been declared as PO, should not, by itself, be the sole reason to reject his regular application for bail, particularly when he has already suffered more than three years of incarceration. The application for bail has to be considered on its own merits. The Court, however, if inclined to grant him bail, can direct the concerned Trial Court to impose necessary conditions to ensure that the applicant remains available to face the consequences of the trial. 6. The parameters governing the grant of regular bail in non-bailable 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 10:55:28 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 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. 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 subordinate merely because the offence alleged is a grave one. In State of Kerala v. Raneef4, 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 1 (2010) 14 SCC 496. 2 (2012) 1 SCC 40. 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 10:55:28 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?” 10. Bearing in mind the other aspects, the bail application of the applicant is considered on merits. 11. The incident occurred on 10.04.2022, when Hakim Singh (deceased) was attacked at the meat shop in Sangam Vihar by an unlawful assembly allegedly led by Rashid @ Gudda. It is alleged that the attackers encircled the victim, assaulted him with sticks and shot him dead. As per the Investigating Officer, there were 08 accused persons who were chargesheeted. Out of 08, 01 was a CCL. Of the remaining 07, 01, namely Jatin @ Jagdish, has been granted bail. The 06 remaining accused persons are, therefore, in jail. 12. Parity qua Jagdish cannot be claimed by the applicant, as the case of Jagdish stands on an altogether different footing. 13. The Court, however, finds that PW-3 Rahul, who is the eyewitness of the incident and is the nephew of the deceased, in his testimony has stated as under: “Witness further states that at 19:35:26 minutes of the footage, another motocycle is seen, on which three persons are sitting and witness identified the accused Kishan as the driver of the said motorcycle, accused Rahul @ Lalla as the person sitting in the middle on the said motorcycle and accused Vijay as the person who is seen sitting at rear portion of the motocycle” 14. On the basis of the aforesaid testimony, it is clear that, except for the applicant having driven the vehicle, i.e. scooty, carrying two other co- accused persons to the spot, no further overt act is attributed to him. The common intention and premeditation to commit the offence will have to be established during the course of the trial. The said aspect shall depend upon 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 10:55:28 the evidence to be led by the prosecution and the defence to be adduced by the accused. The applicant has suffered about three years of incarceration. 15. Without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the Court finds that the applicant can be enlarged on regular bail, subject to such conditions as may be imposed by the concerned Trial Court. 16. The Trial Court shall bear in mind that the applicant was declared as PO and, therefore, impose such conditions as may ensure his presence during the pendency of the trial and to face the consequences, if any. 17. Besides imposing other conditions, two sureties shall necessarily be directed to be produced. 18. Application stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J SEPTEMBER 16, 2026/P/M 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 10:55:28