Pradeep vs State Nct Of Delhi

Court
Delhi High Court

$~102
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%
Date of Decision : 03.11.2026
# CNR No.DLHC010345662026
BAIL APPLN. 3042/2026
+
PRADEEP .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nipun Katyal and Mr. Manan
Sharma, Advs.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Priyanka Dalal, APP for the State
along with Ms. Swati, Adv.
Mr. Rajat Manchanda, Ms. Megha
Gaur, Ms. Sakshi Sharma, Advs. for
complainant.
SI Rahul, PS Sangam Vihar.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

SACHIN DATTA, J. ( ORAL )


1. By way of the present application filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the applicant seeks
regular bail in case arising out of FIR No. 0402/2019 dated 12.12.2019 under
sections 302/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and sections
25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959 registered at P.S. Sangam Vihar.
2. The factual conspectus of the matter is that on 11.12.2019, at about
8:30 P.M., one Rahul Jha was shot in the head in front of House No.H-17/360,
Sangam Vihar, near the office of co-accused Naresh (the father of the
applicant), and was declared brought dead at Majidiya Hospital. The FIR was
registered on the statement of the father of the deceased, Sh. Harish Chander

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
14:42:30
BAIL APPLN. 3042/2026 Page 1 of 8

Jha.
3. It is alleged that the co-accused Naresh caught hold of the deceased and

exhorted the applicant, who fired at him. The applicant was arrested on
13.12.2019; a pistol and one live cartridge is also stated to have been
recovered at his instance from his house.
4. As per the status report, the DNA/FSL result was filed before the
learned trial Court on 14.04.2022. The FSL result qua the firearm has only
recently been obtained and is to be filed through a supplementary
charge-sheet, upon receipt of sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act,
which is stated to be awaited from the DCP concerned.
5. Learned ASJ, while declining bail, vide order dated 08.06.2026, has
recorded that majority of witnesses have been examined and the trial is
pending primarily for want of the FSL result, regarding which notice had been
issued to the Director, FSL.
6. Learned ASJ dismissed the bail application on the ground that the

applicant is the alleged shooter, who has been identified by the public
witnesses before the Court, and that there is a threat to the life of the members
of the family of the deceased, who reside nearby.
7. As per the nominal roll, the actual period spent by the applicant in
custody is 5 years and 9 months. The applicant was on interim bail from
05.03.2022 till 07.04.2023, when he surrendered. His jail conduct is recorded
as satisfactory, and no other case is shown to be pending against him.
8. Co-accused Naresh has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated
18.05.2026 in BAIL APPLN. No.1649/2026.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant emphasizes that the applicant has
been in custody for an inordinately long period of time and also has no

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
14:42:30
BAIL APPLN. 3042/2026 Page 2 of 8

previous involvements. It is submitted that the material witnesses have
already been examined and that, during the periodwhen the applicant was on
interim bail, the said liberty was not misused.
10. It is submitted that the delay in obtaining the FSL Report is not
attributable to the applicant.
11. Learned APP for the State strongly opposes the present application. It
is emphasized that the applicant is the shooter, having a prime role in the
incident. It is apprehended that the applicant may evade the process of law,
threaten or influence the eyewitnesses, or commit another offence.
12. Learned counsel appointed by this Court vide order dated 02.09.2026
(to take care of the interest of the complainant), also strongly opposes the bail
application.
13. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties.
14. It is trite that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. Reference in this
regard may be placed to a judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in
Manish Sisodia v. Enforcement Directorate, (2024) 12 SCC 660 wherein it
has been observed as under:
“52. The Court in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh case [Javed Gulam Nabi
Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 9 SCC 813 : (2025) 1 SCC (Cri)
222] further observed that, over a period of time, the trial courts and the
High Courts have forgotten a very well-settled principle of law that bail is
not to be withheld as a punishment. From our experience, we can say that
it appears that the trial courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in
matters of grant of bail.
The principle that bail is a rule and refusal is an
exception is, at times, followed in breach. On account of non-grant of bail
even in straightforward open-and-shut cases, this Court is flooded with
huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is
high time that the trial courts and the High Courts should recognise the
principle that “bail is rule and jail is exception”.


15. It is further well settled that the gravity of the offence by itself cannot

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
14:42:30
BAIL APPLN. 3042/2026 Page 3 of 8

be the basis for refusing bail. In this regard, reference may be made to the
observations of the Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P. ,
(2020) 11 SCC 648, wherein it was observed as under:
“ 7. On considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties, having regard to the circumstances of this case, in our
opinion, there has been no wrong or improper exercise of
discretion on the part of the High Court in granting bail to the
accused. The factors outlined in Mahipal for testing the legality
of an order granting bail are absent in the order [Vikram Singh v.
State of U.P., 2019 SCC OnLine All 5566] impugned. The
materials available do not justify arriving at the conclusion that
the order impugned suffers from non-application of mind or the
reason for granting bail is not borne out from a prima facie view
of the evidence on record. The offence alleged no doubt is grave
and serious and there are several criminal cases pending against
the accused. These factors by themselves cannot be the basis for
refusal of prayer for bail. The High Court has exercised its
discretion in granting bail to the accused Vikram Singh upon
considering relevant materials. No ex facie error in the order has
been shown by the appellant which would establish exercise of
such discretion to be improper. We accordingly sustain the order
of the High Court granting bail. This appeal is dismissed
.”
16. No doubt, the role attributed to the applicant is graver than that of
co-accused Naresh, and parity as such is not available to the applicant,
however, the following circumstances weigh with this Court:
i. The actual period spent by the applicant in custody is about 5 years and
9 months;
ii. The examination of 19 of 25 witnesses, including the complainant and
the public witnesses, has been completed; as such, the apprehension of
the petitioner influencing the witnesses has substantially reduced;
iii. The applicant’s conduct during the period of interim bail for over a
year, did not involve any complaint or misuse. It is also not disputed
that the applicant surrendered timely; and

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
14:42:30
BAIL APPLN. 3042/2026 Page 4 of 8

iv. The trial has been awaiting the FSL results, which have come only

belatedly and the delay cannot be attributed to the applicant;
v. The applicant has no previous involvements, and his jail conduct is
recorded as satisfactory; and
vi. The apprehension expressed for the safety of the family of the deceased
can be met by stringent conditions.
17. Reliance may be placed upon the order/ judgment dated 16.07.2026
passed by the Supreme Court in Liakat Ali vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir ,
which, inter alia , held as under:
“This is a writ petition seeking to invoke our powers under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950. The prayer in the
writ petition is for the grant of bail, as the petitioner has been
under incarceration for a period of more than nine years and two
months. In short, the grievance of the petitioner is that the trial is
proceeding at a snail’s pace, for no fault of his. The petitioner’s
bail application has attained finality in the year 2024. Even
thereafter, there is no substantial progress in the trial, since as of
yet only 12 out of 30 prosecution witnesses have been examined
before the Trial Court
.
*
However, the continued delay in trial and prolonged
incarceration shocks our judicial conscience. The petitioner was
a teenager at the time of the alleged occurrence and has been
charged with the commission of murder based on circumstantial
evidence. He has been under incarceration for a period of nine
years and two months, for no fault on his part. At this rate, the
trial is likely to take further time. When the accused is under
incarceration, it is incumbent upon the Courtand the prosecuting
agency to expedite the conduct of the trial. Considering the facts
of the case, we are inclined to invoke our powers under Article 32
of the Constitution of India by granting bail to the petitioner, for
which appropriate conditions will have to be imposed by the
concerned Trial Court.
”
18. The right to a speedy trial is an integral facet of Article 21 of the
Constitution, and prolonged incarceration of an undertrial, where the trial is

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
14:42:30
BAIL APPLN. 3042/2026 Page 5 of 8

not likely to conclude in the near future, is by itself a consideration in favour
, (2021) 3 SCC 713, the
of grant of bail. In Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb
Supreme Court has observed as under:
“15. This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the
liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover
within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness
but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court
Legal Aid Committee (Representing Undertrial Prisoners) v.
Union of India , it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be
detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse
consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a
neutral arbiter.
However, owing to the practicalities of real life
where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to
society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial,
the courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought
to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a
timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered
incarceration for a significant period of time, the courts would
ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail.
”
19. Reference in this regard may also be made to the following
observations of the Supreme Court in Arvind Dham v. Enforcement
Directorate , (2026) 7 SCC 330:-
“15. It is well settled that if the State or any prosecuting agency
including, the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or
protect the fundamental right of an accused, to have a speedy trial as
enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, then the State or any
other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the
ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the
Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime [Javed
Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 9 SCC 813 : (2025)
1 SCC (Cri) 222] . The aforesaid proposition was quoted with approval
by another two-Judge Bench of this Court and it was held that long
period of incarceration for around 17 months and the trial not even
having commenced, the appellant in that case has been deprived of his
right to speedy trial [Manish Sisodia v. Enforcement Directorate,
(2024) 12 SCC 660 : (2026) 1 SCC (Cri) N-14] .”

20. Accordingly, in view of the above,the applicant is admitted to regular

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
14:42:30
BAIL APPLN. 3042/2026 Page 6 of 8

bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, with one surety
of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to the
following conditions:
i. The applicant/accused shall not leave NCT of Delhi or travel out of
the country without prior permission of the Trial Court;
ii. The applicant/accused shall provide his permanent address to the
trial Court, and also the address where he will be residing during the
pendency of the case;
iii. The applicant/accused shall intimate the Investigating Officer (IO)
and file an affidavit before the Trial Court regarding any change in
his residential address;
iv. 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;
v. The applicant/accused shall report to the IO as and when called for
by the IO;
vi. The applicant/accused shall not directly or indirectly contact,
approach or threaten the complainant or any member of the family
of the deceased or any witness, or visit the residential premises
where the family of the deceased resides;
vii. The applicant/accused shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
14:42:30
BAIL APPLN. 3042/2026 Page 7 of 8

facts of the case, or tamper with the evidence of the case, in any
manner whatsoever;
viii. The applicant/accused shall appear before the Trial Court on each
and every date of hearing;
ix. The applicant/accused shall not indulge in any criminal activity
during the period of bail;and
x. The applicant/accused shall appear once a month before the IO at
the concerned Police Station between 10:00 am and 11:00 am.
21. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be
entitled to move an application seeking cancellation of bail.
22. The learned trial Court is requested to expedite the trial proceedings to
the extent feasible.
23. 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.
24. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the concerned Jail
Superintendent electronically for information and necessary compliance.
25. The application is disposed of in the above terms. Pending application,
if any, also stands disposed of.

SACHIN DATTA, J
NOVEMBER 3, 2026/ r, ka


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
14:42:30
BAIL APPLN. 3042/2026 Page 8 of 8