BAIL APPLN. 2897/2026 & Connected Matter $~5 & 8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % # CNR No.DLHC010327372026 Date of Decision: 29.09.2026 + (5) ANSHU KUMAR .....Petitioner BAIL APPLN. 2897/2026 and CRL.M.A. 21805/2026 Through: Ms. Dolly Sharma, Adv. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondent Through: Mr. Utkarsh (APP) Inspector Sushilla PS KNK Marg. + (8) ANKIT .....Petitioner BAIL APPLN. 3500/2026 Through: Ms. Dolly Sharma, Adv. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Utkarsh (APP). CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA SACHIN DATTA, J. (ORAL) BAIL APPLN. 2897/2026 BAIL APPLN. 3500/2026 1. These applications seek regular bail in FIR No. 31/2020 registered at P.S. KN Katju Marg under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. Chargesheet has been filed under sections 364/ 392/ 302/ 34 I.P.C. Both the applications are considered together. The applicants are facing the trial concerning the death Digitally Signed By:UMANG Signing Date:06.10.2026 15:50:59 Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 2897/2026 & Connected Matter of Rohan whose body was recovered from a canal on 26.01.2020. Both the accused have remained in custody since January 2020, apart from Anshu Kumar’s short period of interim release. 2. The prosecution relies principally on the deceased being last seen with both applicants on a motorcycle, the subsequent movement and the alleged recovery of his belongings at the behest of accused in BAIL APPLN. 3500/2026, Ankit Kumar. 3. A witness namely Satyawan has deposed his version of the last seen account. He has identified Anshu Kumar as the driver and Ankit as the rear passenger, with the deceased seated between them. The prosecution also alleges a motive against them. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants disputes the reliability of the last seen account. Further, they also rely upon subsequent medical opinion concerning drowning which suggests that drowning may have been the cause for the death. They also contend that there is no direct evidence connecting the petitioner with the death of the deceased persons. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants have further emphasized their lengthy custody and the fact that the material witnesses have already been examined. It is contended that there is no certainty as to when the trial would conclude. 6. This Court has heard respective counsel for the parties at substantial length. It is noticed that, virtually on the very same contentions [vide an order dated 25.08.2025], a Coordinate Bench of this Court had rejected the previous bail application filed by Anshu Kumar (applicant in BAIL APPLN. 2897/2026). The said order, inter alia, reads as under:- Digitally Signed By:UMANG Signing Date:06.10.2026 15:50:59 Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 2897/2026 & Connected Matter Digitally Signed By:UMANG Signing Date:06.10.2026 15:50:59 Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 2897/2026 & Connected Matter 7. It can be seen that the aforesaid order deals with all aspects of the matter including the very contentions that have been sought to be raised by the applicants in these applications. The intervening circumstances on which the applicants rely are in the form of an FSL reports and a subsequent medical opinion, which had allegedly not been filed before the court hearing the previous bail application. 8. It is trite law that though an accused is not precluded from filing a successive bail application, the same can only be entertained by the Court if there is a change in the factual situation or in law, warranting a departure from the earlier view; issues which have already been canvased would ordinarily not be permitted to be re-agitated on the same grounds. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, (2005) 2 SCC 42, the Digitally Signed By:UMANG Signing Date:06.10.2026 15:50:59 Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 2897/2026 & Connected Matter Supreme Court has observed as under: “19. The principles of res judicata and such analogous principles although are not applicable in a criminal proceeding, still the courts are bound by the doctrine of judicial discipline having regard to the hierarchical system prevailing in our country. The findings of a higher court or a coordinate Bench must receive serious consideration at the hands of the court entertaining a bail application at a later stage when the same had been rejected earlier. In such an event, the courts must give due weight to the grounds which weighed with the former or higher court in rejecting the bail application. 20. The decisions given by a superior forum, undoubtedly, are binding on the subordinate fora on the same issue even in bail matters unless of course, there is a material change in the fact situation calling for a different view being taken. Ordinarily, the issues which had been canvassed earlier would not be permitted to be reagitated on the same grounds, as the same would lead to a speculation and uncertainty in the administration of justice and may lead to forum hunting. Therefore, even though there is room for filing a subsequent bail application in cases where earlier applications have been rejected, the same can be done if there is a change in the fact situation or in law which requires the earlier view being interfered with or where the earlier finding has become obsolete. This is the limited area in which an accused who has been denied bail earlier, can move a subsequent application. 9. The applicants contend that the FSL report and the subsequent opinion were not on the record of the previous bail application and were not considered by the Coordinate Bench. It is noticed in that regard that the said documents are dated 30.09.2020 and 05.12.2022 respectively and were available before the previous application came to be decided. Even otherwise, as held in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar (supra), a subsequent application for bail can succeed only where there is a change in the fact situation which requires the earlier view being interfered with, or where the earlier finding has become obsolete. To understand the nature of such Therefore, we are not in agreement with the argument of learned counsel for the accused that in view of the guarantee conferred on a person under Article 21 of the Constitution, it is open to the aggrieved person to make successive bail applications even on a ground already rejected by the courts earlier, including the Apex Court of the country.” Digitally Signed By:UMANG Signing Date:06.10.2026 15:50:59 Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 2897/2026 & Connected Matter ‘change in the fact-situation', reference may be made to State of Maharashtra v. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 605, in the following terms: “7. … Once that application was rejected there was no question of granting a similar prayer. That is virtually overruling the earlier decision without there being a change in the fact-situation. And, when we speak of change, we mean a substantial one which has a direct impact on the earlier decision and not merely cosmetic changes which are of little or no consequence. 10. Thus, the mere placing on record of a document which was not earlier before the Court does not, by itself, constitute a change in circumstances; it must be shown that the same has a direct impact on the prima facie view taken earlier. …” 11. This Court has therefore perused the said documents. Strong emphasis is placed on the observations made in the subsequent opinion appended as Annexure-F to the BAIL APPLN. 2897/2026 which reads as under:- Digitally Signed By:UMANG Signing Date:06.10.2026 15:50:59 Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 2897/2026 & Connected Matter 12. This Court is unable to conclude that the absence of matching biological stains in particular exhibits, by itself, answers the circumstantial case, or establish that the death was accidental. As per the status report filed by the State, the case of the prosecution is that the applicants took the deceased towards the Western Yamuna Canal and pushed/threw him into it. Death by drowning is, thus, prima facie consistent with the case of the prosecution and the said opinion does not dilute the other circumstances or the case against the applicants. Therefore, the documents cannot be said to have any direct impact on the prima facie view taken in the order dated 25.08.2025. 13. It can be seen from the deposition of PW-2 (Satyawan) that he has identified the accused persons and also the vehicle on which they were last seen with the deceased person. As also noticed in the order dated 25.08.2025 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court , acting on the disclosure of co- accused Ankit (applicant in BAIL APPLN. 3500/2026), the purse of the deceased containing his identification documents was recovered and it is alleged that the money therein was shared between both accused persons. 14. It has been observed in the aforesaid order dated 25.08.2025 that the said recovery having been made from the co-accused’s disclosure points towards joint involvement of both accused in the commission of the offence. It can be seen that there has been no material change in the circumstances after the order dated 25.08.2025 came to be passed. Digitally Signed By:UMANG Signing Date:06.10.2026 15:50:59 Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 2897/2026 & Connected Matter 15. In the circumstances, this Court is not persuaded to take a different view vis-a-vis the view taken in the aforesaid order dated 25.08.2025. 16. Further, this Court is not inclined to grant bail on the basis of the period of incarceration alone. A balance has to be struck between the right to individual liberty and the interest of society. Reference in this regard may be placed on Rajesh Ranjan Yadav v. CBI, (2007) 1 SCC 70, wherein it has been observed as under: “16. We are of the opinion that while it is true that Article 21 is of great importance because it enshrines the fundamental right to individual liberty, but at the same time a balance has to be struck between the right to individual liberty and the interest of society. No right can be absolute, and reasonable restrictions can be placed on them. While it is true that one of the considerations in deciding whether to grant bail to an accused or not is whether he has been in jail for a long time, the court has also to take into consideration other facts and circumstances, such as the interest of the society.” 17. The Trial Court is requested to expedite the proceedings. 18. The applicants are granted liberty to apply again after six months if sufficient progress is not made in the Trial Court. 19. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. Pending application also stands disposed of. SEPTEMBER 29, 2026/uk SACHIN DATTA, J By:UMANG Signing Date:06.10.2026 15:50:59