BAIL APPLN. 3551/2026 $~67 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010401902026 + BAIL APPLN. 3551/2026 ANKIT .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Zeeshan Diwan, Advocate (DHCLSC) with Ms. Ankita Yadav, Advocate. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Tarang Srivastav, APP for the State with SI Amit, PS Jahangir Puri. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 29.09.2026 1. The present application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeks regular bail in FIR No. 10/2018 registered at PS Jahangir Puri. The Applicant is facing trial for offences under Sections 394 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,1 and separately, under Section 397 IPC. The latter charge specifically alleges that the Applicant used a knife while committing the robbery and causing the death of Maan Singh. 2. The case of the prosecution, briefly, is that during the intervening night of 9th and 10th January 2018, Maan Singh, a truck driver, had stopped near Bhalswa/Mukarba Chowk and stepped out of the truck. He was 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 01/10/2026 at 11:07:29 BAIL APPLN. 3551/2026 allegedly accosted by a group of persons, robbed and repeatedly stabbed. His helper, Sonu Chaudhary, who was present at the spot, furnished the first account of the occurrence. Maan Singh succumbed to his injuries shortly thereafter. 3. Mr. Zeeshan Diwan, counsel for the Applicant places primary emphasis on the period of incarceration. The Applicant was arrested on 12th January, 2018 and, according to the latest nominal roll, had undergone more than eight years of actual custody as on 23rd September 2026. Mr. Diwan submits that the investigation concluded long ago; the chargesheet and supplementary chargesheet have been filed; no recovery or custodial interrogation remains; and the trial is still at the stage of prosecution evidence, with only fourteen witnesses examined thus far. He also points out that the Applicant remained on interim bail for a substantial period during the COVID-19 pandemic, surrendered thereafter, and is not alleged to have misused the liberty granted to him. 4. On merits, Mr. Diwan submits that the testimony of PW-5, Sonu Chaudhary, is not free from inconsistencies. Attention is drawn to the variation between his initial version regarding the number of motorcycles and his deposition before the Trial Court; the conditions of visibility at the spot; his failure to give any description of the assailants to the police; and his statement in cross-examination that the accused persons had been shown to him at the police station a few days after the occurrence. These circumstances, it is argued, also explain the Applicant’s refusal to participate in the TIP proceedings, where he had stated that he had already been shown to the witnesses. The TIP record does show that the Applicant declined to 1 “IPC” 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 01/10/2026 at 11:07:29 BAIL APPLN. 3551/2026 participate on that ground. 5. Counsel further assails the alleged recovery of the knife. It is pointed out that PW-11, the independent witness associated with the recovery, has not supported the prosecution on that aspect. The forensic material is also sought to be questioned by contending that it is inherently improbable that the Applicant, arrested two days after the occurrence, would retain the weapon and blood-stained clothing in the manner alleged. Reliance is also placed upon the fact that ₹89,700/- was found on the deceased despite the prosecution case being one of robbery, and that the purse of the deceased was not recovered from the Applicant. Parity is also claimed with co- accused Sanjay Yadav @ Babu, who was enlarged on bail on 14th November 2022. Lastly, reliance is placed on Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P.,2 to submit that gravity of the accusation cannot, by itself, justify continued incarceration. 6. Mr. Tarang Srivastav, APP for State opposes the application. He submits that the case against the Applicant stands on a footing materially different from that of the co-accused who has been released. PW-5 has identified the Applicant as the person who stabbed Maan Singh; a knife is alleged to have been recovered at his instance; and the FSL report records that the DNA profile generated from the blood sample of the deceased is accounted for in the alleles obtained from both the knife and the blood- stained jeans attributed to the Applicant. It is further pointed out that the post-mortem records multiple sharp-force injuries and attributes the death to haemorrhagic shock consequent upon stab injuries. The State also relies upon the Applicant’s antecedents and his jail record. 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 01/10/2026 at 11:07:29 BAIL APPLN. 3551/2026 7. The considerations which govern an application for regular bail are well settled. The Court must examine whether there are prima facie or reasonable grounds connecting the accused with the offence; the nature and gravity of the accusation and the punishment it carries; the possibility of the accused absconding, repeating the offence, influencing witnesses or otherwise obstructing the course of justice; and his conduct and antecedents. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee,3 the Supreme Court reiterated these considerations and emphasised that the discretion in matters of bail must be exercised judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles governing bail. At the same time, particularly where the accusation concerns a serious offence, the Court is required to indicate whether the material discloses a prima facie case, without undertaking an elaborate examination of the evidence or recording findings which may prejudice the trial.4 8. The enquiry at the stage of bail is, therefore, a limited one. The Court cannot decide whether the prosecution evidence will ultimately withstand scrutiny, nor can it resolve disputed questions which properly belong to the trial. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh5, the Supreme Court has reiterated that the bail court is concerned with the prima facie evidence and the considerations relevant to grant or refusal of bail; the jurisdiction does not extend to conducting a mini-trial or undertaking a conclusive evaluation of the evidence. This restraint assumes particular significance once evidence 2 2020 SCC OnLine SC 75 3 (2010) 14 SCC 496 4 Masroor v. State of U.P., (2009) 14 SCC 286 5 2026 INSC 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 01/10/2026 at 11:07:29 BAIL APPLN. 3551/2026 has begun to be recorded. In X v. State of Rajasthan6, the Supreme Court deprecated the practice, in serious offences such as rape, murder and dacoity, of granting bail after commencement of trial by picking out discrepancies in the testimony and thereby testing the credibility of witnesses while the trial remains pending. The exercise, therefore, is to examine the material sufficiently to determine whether a prima facie case exists, but not to pronounce upon the reliability of the witnesses or the ultimate evidentiary worth of their testimony. 9. Examined within these limits, the material presently available discloses a prima facie case against the Applicant. The allegation is not confined to the Applicant’s presence with the other accused or to a general allegation of common intention under Section 34 IPC. PW-5 has identified him before the Trial Court as the person who stabbed Maan Singh, and the order dated 28th July, 2026 declining bail also notices this specific role. 10. The defence has, no doubt, brought out matters that will require careful consideration at trial: the variation in the number of assailants and vehicles; the lighting conditions; the absence of any prior description; the alleged exposure of the accused to PW-5 before identification; and the circumstances in which the Applicant declined to participate in the TIP. These are relevant matters for the final appreciation of PW-5’s testimony. To determine their effect at this stage, however, would require the Court to assess his credibility and weigh the evidence, an exercise impermissible in bail jurisdiction. For the present, they do not wholly displace the specific identification of the Applicant. 11. The challenge to the recovery must be approached in the same 6 2024 INSC 909 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 01/10/2026 at 11:07:29 BAIL APPLN. 3551/2026 manner. PW-11 has not supported the prosecution case that the knife was recovered in his presence, and the defence is entitled to rely on that circumstance at trial. The recovery, however, does not stand alone. Another prosecution witness supports it and, for the limited purpose of the present application, the FSL report records a forensic association between the deceased’s DNA profile, the knife, and the blood-stained jeans attributed to the Applicant. The reliability of the recovery, the integrity of the chain of custody, and the allegation of planting must be determined by the Trial Court on the evidence led before it; no concluded view on those issues is warranted at this stage. 12. Nor does the cash found on the deceased render the prosecution case inherently improbable at this stage. The allegation is that a separate purse containing cash and documents was removed. Whether the money that remained on the deceased creates a reasonable doubt about the charge of robbery is an inference to be drawn upon a complete appreciation of the evidence at trial. 13. The plea of parity with Sanjay Yadav @ Babu is equally unpersuasive. The order granting him bail records that the use of the knife and the infliction of the stab injuries were attributed to the present Applicant, whereas Sanjay was alleged to have held the deceased. It also notices that the material concerning Sanjay’s identification was weak. Parity must be assessed with reference to the role assigned to each accused and the evidence available against him; those features distinguish the Applicant’s case. 14. Taken cumulatively, the case is not founded on the gravity of the accusation alone. It rests on a specific overt act attributed to the Applicant 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 01/10/2026 at 11:07:29 BAIL APPLN. 3551/2026 by an eyewitness, coupled, at this stage, with forensic material associating the deceased’s DNA with the knife and the blood-stained clothing allegedly recovered from the Applicant. The separate charge under Section 397 IPC also arises from his alleged use of the knife. Without expressing any view on the ultimate proof of these allegations, the material is sufficient to distinguish the case from one in which the prima facie case has become substantially attenuated. 15. Moreover, the latest nominal roll records the Applicant’s overall jail conduct as unsatisfactory, though his conduct from the last one year is stated to be satisfactory. While this circumstance cannot by itself determine the application, it does not assist the Applicant. 16. The Applicant’s incarceration of more than eight years as an undertrial must nevertheless receive due weight. In Vaibhav Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh7, the Supreme Court recently reiterated that even an accusation of murder cannot justify indefinite custody where the trial has not concluded for reasons not attributable to the accused, since prolonged incarceration directly engages Article 21. At the same time, the status report records that fourteen witnesses have been examined and that the matter is next listed for prosecution evidence on 19th December 2026. The trial has thus progressed, though not with the expedition that the period of custody demands. While the Court is not persuaded to release the Applicant at this stage, his continued incarceration must be matched by an obligation to bring the trial to an early conclusion. 17. Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed at this stage. The Trial Court is requested to accord priority to the matter and make every endeavour 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 01/10/2026 at 11:07:29 BAIL APPLN. 3551/2026 to conclude the trial expeditiously. Unnecessary adjournments shall not be granted, and the prosecution shall ensure the presence of its witnesses on the dates fixed for evidence. 18. It is clarified that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding the present bail application. Nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case or the credibility of any witness. 19. Dismissed. SANJEEV NARULA, J SEPTEMBER 29, 2026/ab 7 Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.7416/2026 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 01/10/2026 at 11:07:29