BAIL APPLN. 3454/2026 Page 1 of 7 $~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010391312026 + BAIL APPLN. 3454/2026 AVDESH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Nivesh Sharma and Ms. Ritu Singh, Advocates. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Tarang Srivastav, APP for State. Insp. Kaushbish Kumar Jha, PS- Swaroop Nagar. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 23.09.2026 1. This application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”] seeks regular bail in FIR No. 09/2018 dated 7th January, 2018, registered at P.S. Swaroop Nagar, Delhi. for the offences under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”]. Consequent to the registering of the FIR, a chargesheet was filed against the Applicant under Sections 302/364/201 of IPC. 2. The prosecution case concerns the disappearance and death of a seven-year-old child, Ashish @ Ashu. The child went missing on 7th January, 2018. According to the prosecution, his body was recovered on 13th February, 2018 from a suitcase kept inside the room occupied by the Applicant. The prosecution alleges that the room was opened with a key taken out by the Applicant and that the suitcase was also opened with a key 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 25/09/2026 at 11:03:29 BAIL APPLN. 3454/2026 Page 2 of 7 taken out by him. The post-mortem attributes the death to asphyxia consequent upon ligature strangulation. The Applicant has been in custody since February 2018. 3. Counsel for the Applicant urges that the Applicant has remained in custody for more than eight years and the trial is yet to conclude. Reliance is placed on the order dated 30th July, 2024, whereby this Court, noting that only 12 out of 28 prosecution witnesses had been examined, directed the Trial Court to make an endeavour to expedite the trial and conclude it within one year from the next date of hearing. Despite the lapse of that period, only 18 witnesses have been examined thus far. It is further submitted that the Applicant has no previous criminal involvement, his jail conduct has been reported to be good, and there is no allegation that he misused the liberty granted to him on interim bail. His continuing medical ailments are also pressed as an additional consideration. 4. On merits, counsel submits that the prosecution case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence and there is no eyewitness either to the alleged kidnapping or to the murder. Considerable emphasis is placed on the prosecution allegation that the child’s body remained concealed in the Applicant’s room for 37 days. It is pointed out that the premises had been visited during the intervening period; PW-8 has himself stated that he had gone inside the Applicant’s room before the eventual recovery; and the police had earlier taken sniffer dogs to the premises while searching for the missing child. The circumstances in which the body was ultimately recovered are, therefore, asserted to be doubtful. It is also urged that PW-4, who was relied upon by the prosecution in support of the alleged motive, did not support that version and was declared hostile. On these premises, 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 25/09/2026 at 11:03:29 BAIL APPLN. 3454/2026 Page 3 of 7 counsel contends that the evidence recorded during trial has materially weakened the prosecution case and, when considered together with the prolonged incarceration, warrants the Applicant’s release on bail. 5. The State opposes the application. It relies principally upon the recovery of the child’s body from the room occupied by the Applicant, the manner in which the room and the suitcase are stated to have been opened, the articles stated to have been recovered from the room, and the evidence already led in support of that recovery. It is submitted that the issues raised by the Applicant do not, at this stage, displace the prosecution case and that the trial is substantially underway. The status report records that 18 out of 28 prosecution witnesses have been examined. 6. At the stage of bail, the Court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the evidence on record to determine whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the Applicant beyond reasonable doubt. That is a matter for trial. The Court is, however, required to examine whether there is a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the Applicant has committed the offence alleged.1 The Court must, therefore, consider the material on record for this limited purpose, without undertaking a conclusive assessment of the evidence or resolving evidentiary conflicts which properly fall for consideration at trial. This is particularly relevant here, where the Applicant relies upon the evidence already recorded to contend that the prosecution case has been materially weakened. 7. Tested on that standard, the Court is unable to accept that the prosecution case has, on account of the evidence recorded thus far, been reduced to mere suspicion. Its case does not stand or fall solely on 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 25/09/2026 at 11:03:29 BAIL APPLN. 3454/2026 Page 4 of 7 alleged motive attributed to the Applicant. The more significant circumstance is the recovery itself. The prosecution alleges that the body of the victim was found inside a suitcase kept in the room occupied by the Applicant. PW-8 has already deposed that the Applicant took out a key, opened the room, and thereafter opened the suitcase from which the body was recovered. The witness also speaks of other articles connected with the deceased being recovered from the room. The post-mortem report, according to the record, attributes the death to asphyxia consequent upon ligature strangulation. These circumstances cannot, at this stage, be treated as inconsequential to the prosecution case. 8. Among the material already brought on record is the testimony of PW-8 concerning the recovery of the child’s body. His account is that, on 13th February, 2018, the Applicant was brought by the police to the premises, opened the room with a key produced by him, and thereafter opened the suitcase from which the child’s body was recovered. The recovery was also stated to have been videographed. PW-8 further refers to the recovery from the room of articles identified as belonging to the deceased. The significance and evidentiary worth of these circumstances will necessarily be tested at trial; for the present purpose, however, they constitute material which cannot be brushed aside, and which lends prima facie support to the prosecution’s case on recovery. 9. The Applicant has, however, pointed to circumstances which will require closer consideration at trial. In cross-examination, PW-8 stated that, after the child went missing and before the recovery, he had on one occasion visited the house of Raja Ram and entered the room where the Applicant 1 Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar alias Polia & Anr. (2020) 2 SCC 118. 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 25/09/2026 at 11:03:29 BAIL APPLN. 3454/2026 Page 5 of 7 was present. That circumstance cannot, at this stage, be viewed in isolation from the rest of his testimony, including his account of the subsequent recovery and his denial of the suggestion that the recovery was not effected at the Applicant’s instance. He also stated that he left the room due to the foul smell emanating from the dead body. Whether the earlier visit, when considered with the remaining evidence, is sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt about the prosecution version is a matter for final appreciation at trial. At the stage of bail, the Court cannot undertake a meticulous evaluation of individual depositions or sift the evidence as though returning a finding on guilt. The circumstance relied upon by the Applicant, therefore, does not presently displace the prima facie significance of the recovery. 10. The submission of counsel based on the earlier use of sniffer dogs also does not, at this stage, advance the Applicant’s case. The evidence placed before the Court refers to the police taking sniffer dogs to the residences of Hori Lal, Raja Ram and other neighbouring houses. It does not clearly establish that the Applicant’s locked room had itself been opened and searched at that stage, or that the suitcase subsequently recovered had been inspected. The defence may certainly test this aspect further before the Trial Court, but the record presently placed before the Court does not, at this stage, render the subsequent recovery inherently improbable. 11. The Court has also kept in view that PW-4 did not support the prosecution version regarding the alleged relationship relied upon as the motive. The existence and evidentiary significance of the alleged motive would, however, have to be tested at trial in the light of the evidence as a whole; no concluded view on that aspect is warranted at the stage of bail. 12. The Applicant’s submission that the case rests on circumstantial 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 25/09/2026 at 11:03:29 BAIL APPLN. 3454/2026 Page 6 of 7 evidence, with no eyewitness to the actual killing, does not, by itself, warrant a different conclusion. What is relevant at this stage is whether the record discloses a prima facie connection between the Applicant and the offence alleged. Viewed in that limited sense, the recovery of the child’s body from the room occupied by the Applicant, in the manner spoken to by the PW already examined, remains a significant circumstance. Its ultimate evidentiary value is for the Trial Court to determine; for present purposes, however, the material cannot be said to have so substantially weakened the prosecution case as to render it merely speculative. 13. The Applicant has remained in custody for a substantial period. The Nominal Roll records an undertrial custody of eight years, five months and fifteen days as on 18th September, 2026. His jail conduct has been reported to be good; he has no previous involvement; and the Nominal Roll records no report of misconduct during the periods when he was released on interim bail. These factors have been taken into account while considering the present application. 14. At the same time, the period of custody cannot be considered in isolation from the material that has emerged in the case. The prosecution case involves specific allegations concerning the kidnapping and death of a seven-year-old child. The deceased went missing on 07th January, 2018. The prosecution case is that, on 13th February, 2018, his body was recovered from a suitcase kept inside the room occupied by the Applicant. The room is stated to have been opened with a key produced by the Applicant, following which the suitcase was also opened with a key produced by him. The post- mortem records the cause of death as asphyxia consequent upon ligature strangulation. 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 25/09/2026 at 11:03:29 BAIL APPLN. 3454/2026 Page 7 of 7 15. The pace of the trial, however, requires attention. On 30th July, 2024, when 12 out of 28 prosecution witnesses had been examined, this Court directed the Trial Court to make an endeavour to expedite the trial and conclude the same within one year from the next date of hearing. That period has since elapsed, and only 18 out of 28 prosecution witnesses have been examined thus far. In view of the Applicant’s prolonged incarceration, the remaining trial ought to proceed on an expedited schedule. 16. The bail application is, accordingly, dismissed. The Trial Court is requested to accord priority to the matter and fix a short schedule for recording the remaining evidence. The prosecution shall ensure the presence of its witnesses on the dates fixed, and no unnecessary adjournment shall be granted to either side. 17. Nothing stated in this order shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the prosecution case, which shall be decided independently on the evidence led before the Trial Court. SANJEEV NARULA, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2026 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 25/09/2026 at 11:03:29