Pawan @ Bandar vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Delhi)
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%
# CNR No.DLHC010322892026
Date of Decision: 29.10.2026
BAIL APPLN. 2884/2026, Crl.M.A.21719/2026
+
PAWAN @ BANDAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Paramjeet, Adv.
versus
THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI) .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Priyanka Dalal (APP)
SI Chetan (P.S. Paschim Vihar-West).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
ORAL
SACHIN DATTA, J. ( )
1. By way of the present application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter “BNSS”), the petitioner herein
seeks regular bail in FIR No. 295/2022 dated 26.02.2022 registered at Police
Station Paschim Vihar (West), Delhi, under Sections 302/34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter “IPC”) and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act,
1959.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on the intervening
night of 25/26.02.2022, the deceased, namely Sanjay, aged about 26 years,
was called near the Transformer Gate, Electricity Office, Udyog Nagar,
Peeragarhi, Delhi, where an altercation took place between the petitioner
and the deceased with respect to the deceased’s interaction with one
Ranjeeta. It is alleged that in the course of the scuffle, the co-accused Nikhil
@ Sonu caught hold of the deceased, and the petitioner stabbed him in the
abdomen with a knife. The deceased was taken to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 2884/2026 Page 1 of 10
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
19:04:15
Hospital, Mangolpuri, Delhi, where he succumbed to his injuries. The
petitioner was arrested on 26.02.2022.
3. This is the second bail application of the petitioner before this Court.
The first bail application, being BAIL APPLN. 4209/2024, was dismissed
by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 09.09.2025. It was
observed therein as under:-
“30. At the same time, this Court cannot overlook the fact that the
petitioners have remained in judicial custody for a period exceeding
three years. Therefore, while dismissing the present applications, this
Court deems it appropriate to request the learned Trial Court to take all
endeavours to ensure that the trial is concluded expeditiously within a
period of six months from today.”
4. Thereafter, vide order dated 12.03.2026 passed in Bail Appln.
3909/2024, upon the matter being placed before a Coordinate Bench of this
Court on an office note, it was ordered as under:-
“3. Matter has, now, been placed on the basis of an Office Notice as a
request has been received from learned Trial Court for seeking extension
of time. The present Presiding Officer of the Court concerned has
submitted that he has taken over the aforesaid Court very recently and
has mentioned in his request that it is difficult to dispose of the matter
within six months which period has already expired on 09.03.2026. He
has prayed that another period of six months be granted to conclude the
trial.
4. According to the report submitted, case is at the stage of prosecution
evidence and fifteen prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined.
5. Keeping in mind the reasons assigned, request made by learned Trial
Court for grant of another six months period to conclude the trial is,
hereby acceded to.
6. Let a communication in this regard be sent to learned Trial Court by
the Registry.”
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has been in judicial
custody since 26.02.2022. As per the Nominal Roll, as on 14.08.2026, the
petitioner had undergone 04 years, 05 months and 03 days of custody. As on
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 2884/2026 Page 2 of 10
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
19:04:15
date, the period of custody exceeds four years and seven months. He further
submits that two eye-witnesses , namely PW-3 Sagar and PW-4 Vijay, have
been examined and they have not supported the case of the prosecution. It is
submitted that both the periods fixed by this Court for conclusion of the trial
have expired. It is submitted that the witnesses who remain to be examined
are mostly official witnesses, i.e., police officials and medical officers, and
that no apprehension of their being influenced can arise.
6. It is submitted by the learned APP that the offence is grave and the
weapon was recovered at the instance of the petitioner from the petitioner’s
residence. It is further submitted that the FSL report also incriminates the
petitioner inasmuch as the blood stains detected on the knife and on the
clothes seized were found to match the blood/DNA profile of the deceased.
7. It is informed that, as per the Status Report dated 14.08.2026, out of a
total of 30 prosecution witnesses, 14 witnesses have been examined.
REASONING
8. This is a successive bail application. It is well settled that there is no
absolute bar to the maintainability of a successive application for bail;
however, such an application can be entertained only where there is a
change in the factual or legal situation which calls for reconsideration of the
view taken earlier. Reference in this regard may be made to the decision of
the Supreme Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu
Yadav, (2005) 2 SCC 42.
9. The considerations relevant to bail, especially in cases under Section
302 of the IPC, have been delineated by the Supreme Court in State of
Maharashtra v. Sitaram Popat Vetal , (2004) 7 SCC 521:
“6. There is a need to indicate in the order, reasons for prima facie
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 2884/2026 Page 3 of 10
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
19:04:15
concluding why bail was being granted particularly where an
accused was charged of having committed a serious offence. It is
necessary for the courts dealing with application for bail to
consider among other circumstances, the following factors also
before granting bail, they are:
1. The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case
of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence.
2. Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or
apprehension of threat to the complainant.
3. Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.”
10. In Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) , (1978) 1 SCC 118, the
Supreme Court, while distinguishing the power of the Magistrate under
Section 437(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter
“CrPC”) and that of the Court of Session/High Court under Section 439(1)
of the CrPC (which provisions now correspond, respectively, to Sections
480 and 483 of the BNSS) observed as under:
“24. Section 439(1) CrPC of the new Code, on the other hand, confers
special powers on the High Court or the Court of Session in respect of
bail. Unlike under Section 437(1) there is no ban imposed under
Section 439(1), CrPC against granting of bail by the High Court or the
Court of Session to persons accused of an offence punishable with
death or imprisonment for life. It is, however, legitimate to suppose that
the High Court or the Court of Session will be approached by an
accused only after he has failed before the Magistrate and after the
investigation has progressed throwing light on the evidence and
circumstances implicating the accused. Even so, the High Court or the
Court of Session will have to exercise its judicial discretion in
considering the question of granting of bail under Section 439(1) CrPC
of the new Code. The overriding considerations in granting bail to
which we adverted to earlier and which are common both in the case of
Section 437(1) and Section 439(1) CrPC of the new Code are the
nature and gravity of the circumstances in which the offence is
committed; the position and the status of the accused with reference to
the victim and the witnesses; the likelihood, of the accused fleeing from
justice; of repeating the offence; of jeopardising his own life being
faced with a grim prospect of possible conviction in the case; of
tampering with witnesses; the history of the case as well as of its
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 2884/2026 Page 4 of 10
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
19:04:15
investigation and other relevant grounds which, in view of so many
valuable factors, cannot be exhaustively set out.”
(emphasis supplied)
11. These factors have to be juxtaposed against the well-settled legal
position, reiterated by the Supreme Court in the landmark judgment of State
of Rajasthan v. Balchand , (1977) 4 SCC 308, wherein it was observed that
“the basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail” .
12. At the same time, it is equally well settled that, at the stage of bail, the
Court is not to enter upon the credibility or reliability of the prosecution
witnesses. In Satish Jaggi v. State of Chhattisgarh , (2007) 11 SCC 195, the
Supreme Court held as under:
“5. It is settled law that in granting or non-granting of bail in non-
bailable offence, the primary consideration is the nature and
gravity of the offence. In the present case Respondent 3 is accused
of murdering a rival political leader while campaigning in the
election.
6. It appears that the learned Chief Justice did not consider the
nature and the gravity of the offence while considering the bail
application of the accused. On the contrary, while considering for
bail, the learned Chief Justice appears to have decided the case
pending trial on merit after scrutinising the evidence. To say the
least, it is against all canons of law and judicial propriety.
*
12. Normally if the offence is non-bailable also, bail can be granted
if the facts and circumstances so demand. We have already
observed that in granting bail in non-bailable offence, the primary
consideration is the gravity and the nature of the offence. A reading
of the order of the learned Chief Justice shows that the nature and
the gravity of the offence and its impact on the democratic fabric of
the society was not at all considered. We are more concerned with
the observations and findings recorded by the learned Chief Justice
on the credibility and the evidential value of the witnesses at the
stage of granting bail. By making such observations and findings,
the learned Chief Justice has virtually acquitted the accused of all
the criminal charges levelled against him even before the trial. The
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 2884/2026 Page 5 of 10
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
19:04:15
trial is in progress and if such findings are allowed to stand it
would seriously prejudice the prosecution case. At the stage of
granting of bail, the court can only go into the question of the
prima facie case established for granting bail. It cannot go into the
question of credibility and reliability of the witnesses put up by the
prosecution. The question of credibility and reliability of
prosecution witnesses can only be tested during the trial.
13. In the present case, the findings recorded by the learned Chief
Justice, as referred to above, virtually amount to the regular trial
pointing out the deficiency and reliability/credibility of the
prosecution evidence. Such findings recorded at the stage of
consideration of bail, in our view, cannot be allowed to sustain.”
(emphasis supplied)
13. Significantly, the circumstance that PW-3 and PW-4 have turned
hostile was expressly considered by the Coordinate Bench while dismissing
the first bail application. It was held in the judgment dated 09.09.2025 as
under:
“27. The same reasoning applies to the issue of eye-witnesses
turning hostile. The weight and evidentiary value to be attached to
hostile testimony is to be determined in the course of appreciation
of evidence by the learned Trial Court. This Court, while
considering bail, cannot undertake a microscopic evaluation of
their depositions.
*
28. In this context, reliance placed by the respondents on Satish
Jaggi (Supra), is apposite. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in
granting or declining bail in non-bailable offences, the primary
consideration is the nature and gravity of the offence. At the stage
of granting bail, the Court may only examine whether a prima facie
case is made out and cannot enter into the credibility and reliability
of prosecution witnesses, which is a matter strictly for trial. The
Supreme Court further cautioned that any findings on credibility at
the bail stage risk prejudicing the trial and virtually amount to a
pre-trial acquittal, which is impermissible. The ratio of the said
judgment squarely applies to the present case, where the arguments
of the petitioners primarily rest upon the testimony of PW-3 and
PW-4.”
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 2884/2026 Page 6 of 10
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
19:04:15
14. In view of the above, the hostility of PW-3 and PW-4 does not, by
itself, constitute a change in circumstances, the said aspect having already
been considered and dealt with by the Coordinate Bench vide judgment
dated 09.09.2025. Equally, the earlier view of this Court on the prima facie
material, including the recovery of the knife at the instance of the petitioner
and the FSL report, is not being revisited, nor is this Court undertaking any
assessment of the credibility of any of the eye-witnesses.
15. However, there is a change in circumstances on account of the
following factors:-
i. The petitioner has spent a further period of more than one year in
custody. As noticed above, his total period of custody is now more
than 4.5 years.
ii. On 09.09.2025, this Court requested that the trial be concluded within
a period of six months. The said time was extended on 12.03.2026 by
another six months. Both periods have run out and it appears that trial
is unlikely to be concluded in the near future.
iii. The trial has, in the meanwhile, progressed materially. The two cited
eye-witnesses have been examined, and the witnesses who remain to
be examined are stated to be largely official and formal witnesses.
This Court does not see any realistic possibility of any of the
remaining official witnesses being influenced by the petitioner.
iv. As per the Nominal Roll dated 14.08.2026, there is no other case
pending against the petitioner, and his overall jail conduct as well as
his jail conduct during the last one year has been reported to be
“satisfactory”. The petitioner was also enlarged on interim bail on
four occasions and surrendered on each occasion, and there is nothing
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 2884/2026 Page 7 of 10
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
19:04:15
on record to suggest that he misused the liberty so granted.
16. In the above context, the prolonged incarceration of the petitioner,
coupled with the absence of any realistic prospect of the trial being
concluded in the near future, is required to be taken into account. In Sheikh
Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh ,
2024 INSC 534, the Supreme Court held as under:
“22. It is trite law that an accused is entitled to a speedy trial. This
Court in a catena of judgments has held that an accused or an
undertrial has a fundamental right to speedy trial which is
traceable to Article 21 of the Constitution of India. If the alleged
offence is a serious one, it is all the more necessary for the
prosecution to ensure that the trial is concluded expeditiously.
When a trial gets prolonged, it is not open to the prosecution to
oppose bail of the accused-undertrial on the ground that the
charges are very serious. Bail cannot be denied only on the ground
that the charges are very serious though there is no end in sight for
the trial to conclude.”
17. Concededly, the offence under Section 302 of the IPC is of a grave,
heinous and serious nature. However, it is settled by the Supreme Court in
Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P. , (2020) 11 SCC 648, that this cannot be
the sole factor for rejecting the plea for bail. As already noticed in Sheikh
Javed Iqbal (supra), it is not open to the prosecution to oppose bail only on
the ground that the charges are serious, where there is no end in sight for the
trial to conclude.
18. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, the applicant is admitted to
regular bail in FIR No. 295/2022 on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.
25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned
Trial Court. The same shall be subject to the following conditions:-
i. The applicant/accused shall attend every hearing before the
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 2884/2026 Page 8 of 10
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
19:04:15
learned Trial Court unless exempted by the learned trial Court;
ii. The applicant/accused shall not leave NCT of Delhi or travel
out of the country without prior permission of the learned trial
Court;
iii. The applicant/accused shall provide his permanent address to
the learned trial Court, and also the address where he will be
residing during the pendency of the case;
iv. The applicant/accused shall intimate the Investigating Officer
(IO) and file an affidavit before the learned trial Court
regarding any change in his residential address;
v. The applicant/accused shall furnish his mobile number to the
Investigating Officer (IO)/Station House Officer (SHO)
concerned, which shall be kept in working condition at all
times. The mobile number shall be kept switched on, with
location services enabled at all times, and the same shall be
shared with the IO. The mobile number shall not be changed
without prior intimation to the IO during the pendency of the
trial;
vi. The applicant/accused shall report to the IO as and when called
for by the IO;
vii. The applicant/ accused shall not directly or indirectly contact
the complainant, any prosecution witness, and their family
members;
viii. The applicant/accused shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with
the facts of the case, or tamper with the evidence of the case, in
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 2884/2026 Page 9 of 10
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
19:04:15
any manner whatsoever;
ix. The applicant/accused shall appear before the learned Trial
Court on each and every date of hearing unless exempted;
x. The applicant/accused shall not indulge in any criminal activity
during the period of bail; and
xi. The applicant/accused shall report to the concerned SHO, on
the second and fourth Monday of every month at 11:00 a.m.
and be discharged by 12:00 noon, after recording his presence
and completion of the necessary formalities.
19. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be
entitled to move an application for cancellation of bail.
20. The learned Trial Court is requested to expedite the trial proceedings
to the extent feasible.
21. It is clarified that the observations made herein are solely for the
purpose of deciding the present bail application and shall neither influence
the trial proceedings nor be construed as an expression of opinion of this
Court on the merits of the case.
22. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the concerned Jail
Superintendent electronically for information and necessary compliance.
23. The application is disposed of in the above terms. The pending
application also stands disposed of.
SACHIN DATTA, J
OCTOBER 29, 2026 /uk,sd
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 2884/2026 Page 10 of 10
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
19:04:15