Prem @ Sagar vs State Nct Of Delhi
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~78 & 80
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%
Date of Decision: 14.10.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010338672026
+ BAIL APPLN. 2984/2026 & CRL.M.A. 22526/2026
PREM @ SAGAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vimal Tyagi, Mr. Chirag Khokar
and Mr. Nishant Tyagi, Advocates.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State with
Insp. Ravinder Solanki, PS Adarsh
Nagar.
80
# CNR No. DLHC010170912026
+ CRL.REV.P. 249/2026 & CRL.M.A. 12560/2026
PREM @ SAGAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vimal Tyagi, Mr. Chirag Khokar
and Mr. Nishant Tyagi, Advocates.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State with
Insp. Ravinder Solanki, PS Adarsh
Nagar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
SACHIN DATTA, J. (ORAL)
BAIL APPLN. 2984/2026
CRL.REV.P. 249/2026
1. The present petitions arise out of FIR No. 0426/2025 dated 14.05.2025,
registered at PS Adarsh Nagar, under Sections 103(1)/3(5) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter “BNS”). The consequent trial, being SC No.
6837/2025, is pending before the learned ASJ-03, North District, Rohini
BAIL APPLN. 2984/2026 & connected matter Page 1 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:16.10.2026
17:59:58
Courts, Delhi.
2. Since the matters arise out of the same FIR and have been heard
together, they are being dealt with by way of this common order.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.05.2025,the body of one Rahul
was found under a tree at Meel Wala Park, near M2K DDA Park, Lal Bagh,
Azadpur, Delhi, bearing multiple injuries on his head and face. Two
blood-stained stones were found lying near the body, and blood-stained gauze
was also lifted from the spot. In terms of post-mortem report No. 594/2025,
the cause of death was opined to be cranio cerebral damage consequent upon
injury to the head which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of
nature.
4. It is the case of the prosecution that the CCTV footage recorded at
00:21 hours on 14.05.2025 showed three men at the spot where the body was
found, and thereafter leaving through the same entry/exit while attempting to
conceal their faces. It is further the case of the prosecution that on the basis of
information furnished by a secret informer, they were identified as Prem @
Sagar, Akash and a child in conflict with law (‘CCL’). All three were
apprehended later on the same day, i.e. 14.05.2025; the two adult accused
were arrested and were produced before the concerned Court on 15.05.2025
and remanded to judicial custody, whereas the CCL was produced before the
Juvenile Justice Board and sent to an observation home. It is also submitted
that the clothes of the accused persons, allegedly worn by them at the time of
the occurrence, were seized.
5. Significantly, in terms of the FSL Report No.
SFSL(DELHI)/15159/BIO/A02115/25, the DNA profile generated from the
blood of the deceased was found to match the DNA profile generated from the
BAIL APPLN. 2984/2026 & connected matter Page 2 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:16.10.2026
17:59:58
T-shirt and the jeans pant of the accused Prem @ Sagar, as also from the shirt
and the jeans pant of the CCL. The relevant extracts of the FSL Report
regarding DNA examination are as under:
“1. The DNA profile of male origin generated from the source of
exhibit '7' (Blood on gauze cloth piece of deceased) is found to be
matching with the DNA profile generated from the source of
exhibits '5a' (T-shirt of accused Prem), '5b) (Jeans pant of accused
Prem), '6a' (Shirt of CCL) & '6b' (Jeans pant of CCL).
2. The DNA profile of male origin generated from the source of
exhibit '7' (Blood on gauze cloth piece of deceased) is found to be
similar with the DNA profile generated from the source of exhibits
'8a' (T-shirt of deceased), '8b' (Lower of deceased) & '8c'
(Underwear of deceased).”
6. The FSL Report has been placed on record by way of a supplementary
chargesheet. It may be noticed that charge had, by then, already been
framedagainst both the applicants under Section 103(1) read with Section
3(5) BNS, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. PW-1, HC Ravi
Kant No. 861/NW, the duty officer who registered the FIR, was examined,
cross-examined and discharged on 03.08.2026. The main chargesheet cites
twenty-four witnesses; and two further witnesses, namely Dr. Dimple Bhatia,
Junior Scientific Officer (Biology), FSL, and Insp. Ravinder Solanki, have
been cited in the supplementary chargesheet. The matter is presently fixed
before the learned Trial Court for prosecution evidence on 02.12.2026.
7. Both the applicants were arrested on 14.05.2025 and have been in
custody since then.
CRL.REV.P. 249/2026
8. In CRL.REV.P. 249/2026, preferred under Sections 397/401 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Sections 438 and 442 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter “BNSS”), the
BAIL APPLN. 2984/2026 & connected matter Page 3 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:16.10.2026
17:59:58
petitioner assails an order dated 15.12.2025 passed by the learned ASJ-03,
North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi, whereby charge was framed against the
petitioner, i.e. Prem @ Sagar, under Section 103(1) read with Section 3(5)
BNS, and he seeks discharge.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no eyewitness to
the incident and that the secret informer has not been cited as a witness. It is
submitted that the statements recorded in under Section 180 of the BNSS do
not implicate the petitioner.
10. The law is well settled that a revision petition is maintainable against an
order framing charge. However, the law is also well settled to the effect that at
the stage of framing of charge, the Court is required to sift the material only
for the purpose of ascertaining whether the same discloses grave suspicion
against the accused. The purpose of the same is not to weigh the material as if
conducting the trial.It is equally well settled that the revisional jurisdiction is
to be exercised sparingly, and that the revisional court does not sit as a court
of appeal to re-appreciate the material, absent any glaring perversity. In this
regard, reference may usefully be made to the judgment of a coordinate
Bench of this Court in Vijay Partap Singh v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
&Anr. ,2025 SCC OnLine Del 8640, wherein, after noticing Union of India v.
Prafulla Kumar Samal , (1979) 3 SCC 4, and State of Gujarat v.
DilipsinhKishorsinh Rao , (2023) 17 SCC 688, it was observed as under:
“16. The scope of interference by High Courts while exercising
revisional jurisdiction in a challenge to order framing
charge/discharge is well settled. The power ought to be exercised
sparingly, in the interest of justice. It is not open to the Court to
misconstrue the revisional proceedings as an appeal and
reappreciate the evidence unless any glaring perversity is brought
to its notice. ”
BAIL APPLN. 2984/2026 & connected matter Page 4 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:16.10.2026
17:59:58
18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar
Samal : (1979) 3 SCC 4, dealt with the scope of enquiry a judge is
required to make with regard to the question of framing of charges.
Inter alia, the following principles were laid down by the Court:
"10. Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, the
following principles emerge:
(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the
charges under Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to
sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out
whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made
out.
xxx xxx xxx
(3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend
upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of
universal application. By and large however if two views are equally
possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before
him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion
against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the
accused.”
21. The Court at the stage of framing of charge is to evaluate the
material only for the purpose of finding out if the facts constitute
the alleged offence, given the ingredients of the offence. Thus,
while framing of charges, the Court ought to look at the limited
aspect of whether, given the material placed before it, there is
grave suspicion against the accused which is not properly
explained. Though, for the purpose of conviction, the same must
be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
”
11. Further, Section 250 BNSS requires reasons to be recorded for
discharge. In the present case, the material on record is sufficient to raise
grave suspicion against the petitioner. He was apprehended on the very day of
the incident; blood was detected on his clothes; and the DNA profile
generated from the blood of the deceased has since been found to match the
DNA profile generated from his T-shirt and jeans pant. Whether the
identification from the CCTV footage, the role of the informer and the
disclosure statements are reliable, are matters to be tested in evidence.
12. The trial has commenced and PW-1 has been examined. No illegality
BAIL APPLN. 2984/2026 & connected matter Page 5 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:16.10.2026
17:59:58
or perversity is discernible in the impugned order so as to warrant interference
in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under Sections 438/442 BNSS
(corresponding to Sections 397/401 CrPC). The petition is, accordingly,
dismissed, along with the pending application. It is, however, clarified that
the observations made hereinabove are prima facie in nature, for the purposes
of the present petition alone, and shall not prejudice the trial on merits.
13. Pending application also stands disposed of.
BAIL APPLN. 2984/2026
14. This is the third bail application filed by the present applicant before
this Court seeking regular bail. The first bail application before this Court was
disposed of as not pressed on 07.04.2026 in BAIL APPLN. 1344/2026. The
relevant portion of the order dated 07.04.2026 reads as under:
BAIL APPLN. 2984/2026 & connected matter Page 6 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:16.10.2026
17:59:58
15. It is noticed that liberty was granted to the applicant to file a fresh bail
application after the FSL Report was filed/submitted before the Court. The
second bail application came to be filed thereafter, being BAIL APPLN.
1988/2026. The same was disposed of vide order dated 20.05.2026, which
reads as under:
BAIL APPLN. 2984/2026 & connected matter Page 7 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:16.10.2026
17:59:58
16. It is noticed that the order dated 20.05.2026 specifically refers to the
fact that the FSL Report incriminates the applicant. Consequently, the said
application was withdrawn by the applicant at that stage.
17. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a young
man, aged about 19 years at the time of his arrest, with no criminal
antecedents. It is submitted that he has been in custody for the past about 17
months and that the trial is likely to take a considerable period of time to be
completed.
18. On the other hand, learned APP for the State opposes the present
application on the ground of the gravity of the offence and the forensic
material.
19. It is trite that ‘bail is the rule and jail is the exception’. At the same
time, this Court is required to consider, inter alia, the nature of the accusation
and the prima facie material in support thereof.
BAIL APPLN. 2984/2026 & connected matter Page 8 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:16.10.2026
17:59:58
20. The Supreme Court in The State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan , (2026)
8 SCC 223, has observed that the following considerations are relevant while
exercising discretion in granting/denying bail:
“29.2. In Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT of Delhi, this court laid down
guiding principles:
(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind not only the
nature of the accusations, but the severity of the punishment, if the
accusation entails conviction and the nature of evidence in support
of the accusations.
(b) Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with
or the apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant
should also weigh with the court in the matter of grant of bail.
(c) While it is not expected to have the entire evidence establishing
the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but there ought
always to be a prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the
charge.
(d) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is
only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in
the matter of grant of bail, and in the event of there being some doubt
as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of
events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.”
33.1. It is a settled principle that at the bail stage, courts are
precluded from undertaking a detailed examination of evidence or
rendering findings that touch upon the merits of the case. Only a
prima facie assessment of the material is warranted. The court
cannot conduct a mini-trial or record conclusions that could
influence the outcome of the trial.
35.1. It is well settled that the mere filing of a charge-sheet does not
confer an indefeasible right to bail. Likewise, the mere prospect of
a prolonged trial cannot, by itself, outweigh the gravity of the
offence, the incriminating material gathered during investigation,
or the likelihood of tampering with witnesses.
35.6 . … The mere filing of the charge-sheet, the existence of a
long list of witnesses, or the possibility of delay in trial, cannot, by
themselves, constitute valid reasons to dilute the gravity of the
offence or to disregard the case put forth by the prosecution. As
repeatedly held by this Court, such factors are not standalone
grounds for the grant of bail in heinous offences involving
murder.
”
BAIL APPLN. 2984/2026 & connected matter Page 9 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:16.10.2026
17:59:58
21. This Court is also required to consider the attendant facts and
circumstances, including the forensic material which incriminates the
petitioner/applicant and which was also taken note of at the time of the
hearing of the previous bail application of the applicant.
22. In the present case, the incriminating forensic report is a conspicuous
circumstance which this Court is unable to ignore. The DNA profile
generated from the blood of the deceased has been found on the clothes of the
applicant.
23. A coordinate Bench of this Court has, in comparable circumstances,
declined bail in Sarnam Verma @ Suraj v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi ,
BAIL APPLN. 2164/2025, decided on 22.09.2025, where the FSL report
disclosed the blood of the deceased on the clothes of the accused. It was
observed as under:
9. The contention of the applicant regarding prolonged incarceration
and delay in trial, though not unfounded, cannot by itself override the
gravity of the allegations in the present case. The right to speedy trial
under Article 21 is undoubtedly important, but it cannot be read in
isolation so as to eclipse the overwhelming consideration of the
seriousness of the offence, especially where the delay is attributable
partly to systemic factors and the gravity of the charge is such that
releasing the accused would not be in the larger interest of justice.
“
At the stage of bail, a detailed appreciation of evidence is not
warranted, yet the Court cannot ignore that there exists sufficient
material which, if proved, would clearly implicate the applicant.
10. …
xxx
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered
opinion that no case for grant of bail is made out. The offence alleged is of
the gravest kind, involving the murder of three innocent family members in
a pre-planned manner, which shocks the conscience of society. The
applicant's plea of prolonged incarceration, in the facts of the present
case, cannot outweigh the seriousness and gravity of the charges.
”
24. The offence is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. In the
facts of the present case, the age of the applicant, his antecedents and the
BAIL APPLN. 2984/2026 & connected matter Page 10 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:16.10.2026
17:59:58
period already spent in incarceration do not outweigh the aforesaid
considerations. In Sri Darshan (supra), the Supreme Court has observed that
“the nature of the offence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of
bail – the more heinous the crime, the greater the chance of refusal of bail.”
25. Likewise, a coordinate bench of this Court in Dineet v. State Govt of
NCT of Delhi , 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8603, while declining bail to an
accused who had remained in custody for nearly five years in a case of
murder, observed as under:
“ 24. Furthermore, the lengthy custody of the petitioner is to be weighed
against the maximum sentence for the offence alleged, which is life
imprisonment. It is trite that while delay in trial is unfortunate and is a
direct contravention of ones right to personal liberty, it cannot be, per se,
a pass guaranteeing bail , as noted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dipak
Shubash Chandra Mehta v CBI5.
25. It must be weighed against other factors, such as the accused's
ability to influence/tamper with witnesses/evidence, his likelihood of
being present during trial, and whether a prima facie case exists to the
extent of his/her involvement in the commission of a crime and the
gravity of the offence in question, measurable by the quantum of
punishment prescribed.
”
26. For the foregoing reasons, no case for the grant of regular bail is made
out. The application is, accordingly, dismissed.
27. It is, however, made clear that the applicant shall be at liberty to renew
his prayer for bail after the forensic witnesses have been examined, or in the
event the trial does not progress materially within a period of six months from
today.
28. Pending application also stands disposed of.
SACHIN DATTA, J
OCTOBER 14, 2026/ at/sd
BAIL APPLN. 2984/2026 & connected matter Page 11 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:16.10.2026
17:59:58