Praveen vs State Nct Of Delhi & Anr.

Court
Delhi High Court

$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: 27 October, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010133122026
+ BAIL APPLN. 1296/2026
PRAVEEN .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Vrinda Bhandari, Adv.
(DHCLSC) with Ms. Nitya Jain, Adv.

versus

STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP
M: 9868632122
Ms. Jagrati Singh, Mr. Rajpal, Mr.
Vijay Dagar, Mr. Surendar Kumar,
Mr. Omprakash and Mr. Yuvan
Bhatnagar, Advs. for R-2
SI Sachin, PS BHD Nagar

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (Oral):
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), on behalf of the petitioner,
namely, Mr. Praveen, S/o Mr. Mamman, seeking grant of regular bail in
connection with the First Information Report (“FIR”) being FIR No.
th
450/2022 dated 29 August, 2022, registered under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), at Police Station (“PS”) Baba Haridas
Nagar.

2. Subsequently, upon completion of the investigation, a Chargesheet
Signature Not Verified
Page 1 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
13:08:50

came to be filed under Sections 302/34 of the IPC and Sections 25/27 of the
Arms Act, 1959 (“Arms Act”).
3. This Court is informed that the petitioner had earlier preferred a
petition for regular bail before the Additional Sessions Judge (“ASJ”)-05,
South West District, Dwarka, Delhi, which came to be dismissed vide order
th
dated 17 January, 2026.
4. The case being SC 975/2022 , instituted in respect of FIR No.
450/2022 is pending adjudication before the ASJ-05, South West District,
Dwarka Court, Delhi, and is currently at the stage of prosecution evidence.
5. The case of the prosecution, as emerging from the material on record,
is as follows:
th
5.1. On 28 August, 2022, information vide DD No. 23A was received
that the deceased victim had been shot with a gun. Thereafter, the
police officials reached the spot that was near a farm of Rampat,
Kaladeri Road .
5.2. On arriving at the spot, a dead body was found lying in a pool of
blood with a gun-shot mark on the forehead. The body of the
deceased was identified as one Mr. Azad Singh.
5.3. During the investigation, two eye-witnesses, namely, Mr. Naveen
Dagar and Mr. Anoop Dagar, were examined who stated that Mr.
Naveen caught hold of the deceased victim and Mr. Praveen shot him
with a country made pistol, after which, he fled away from the spot.
th
5.4. The accused, i.e., Mr. Naveen and Mr. Praveen were arrested on 29
August, 2022.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there are 43
prosecution witnesses out which 19 witnesses have already been examined.
Signature Not Verified
Page 2 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
13:08:50

7. She submits that the present matter was being adjourned only on the
ground that the two witnesses, i.e., Mr. Naveen Dagar and Mr. Anoop
Dagar, who are the eye witnesses were yet to be examined. Today, she
informs the Court that the said two witnesses have not been examined till
date.
8. She further submits that the petitioner has already spent more than
four years in jail.
9. In this regard, attention of this Court has been drawn to the Nominal
th
Roll dated 16 April, 2026, furnished by the Jail Authorities, which shows
that the petitioner has spent a total custody period of 03 years 07 months and
th th
15 days in jail, i.e., from 30 August, 2022, to 14 April, 2026.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the
Chargesheet in the present matter was filed way back in the year 2022 and
the trial commenced in the year 2022.
11. However, the present petition is vehemently opposed by the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor (“APP”) for the State.
12. He submits that two eye-witnesses are yet to be examined.
13. He further submits that the present case involves allegations of a
grave and heinous offence under Section 302 of the IPC, being a murder
committed in broad daylight, which is punishable with a maximum sentence
of death or imprisonment for life.
14. Learned counsel appearing for the Legal Representatives (“LRs”) of
the deceased also opposes the present petition.
th
15. This Court takes note of the Status Report dated 12 April, 2026, filed
by the Station House Officer (“SHO”), whereby, it has been stated that the
weapon of offence, i.e., a desi katta (Pistol) and an empty cartridge was
Signature Not Verified
Page 3 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
13:08:50

recovered at the instance of the petitioner and taken into police possession
through a seizure memo.
16. It is further noted that the two eye-witnesses, present at the spot of the
incidence are yet to be examined. In this regard, this Court is informed that
th
the next date before the Trial Court is 14 November, 2026.
17. In view of the gravity of the offence and the prima facie involvement
of the petitioner, as made out on the record, the mere fact that the trial is still
continuing cannot, by itself, be a ground for the grant of bail, especially
where the allegations against the petitioner are serious.
18. In this regard, reference may be made to the observations made by the
th
Supreme Court in the order dated 27 November, 2024, titled as X Versus
State of Rajasthan & Anr. , in SLP (Crl) 13378/2024 , wherein, it was stated
that ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity, etc., once the
trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses, the
Court be it the Trial Court or the High Court should be loath in entertaining
the bail application of the accused.
19. Further, in the case of State of Karnataka Versus Sri Darshan and
Others, (2026) 8 SCC 223 , the Supreme Court laid down the following
considerations that are relevant when exercising discretion to grant or deny
bail:
“xxx xxx xxx
29.2. In Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi)
[Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 4 SCC
280: 2001 SCC (Cri) 674], 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.
Signature Not Verified
Page 4 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
13:08:50

(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.”
xxx xxx xxx

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.
35.2. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [Kalyan
Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2005) 2 SCC 42: 2005 SCC
(Cri) 489], this Court categorically held that: (SCC p. 48, para
8)
“8. … the High Court could not have allowed the bail
application on the sole ground of delay in the conclusion of the
trial without taking into consideration the allegation made by the
prosecution in regard to the existence of prima facie case,
gravity of offence, and the allegation of tampering with the
witness by threat and inducement when on bail. … non-
consideration of the same and grant of bail solely on the ground
of long incarceration vitiated the order…”

xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)

20. Thus, considering the nature of the crime, the recovery of the weapon
of offence at the instance of the petitioner, and the fact that the eye-
witnesses are yet to be examined, this Court does not find this to be a fit case
Signature Not Verified
Page 5 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
13:08:50

for the grant of bail.
21. It is clarified that what has been observed in this order are just prima
facie observations and shall not be considered as an expression of any final
opinion as regards the guilt or innocence of the petitioner.
22. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.


MINI PUSHKARNA, J
OCTOBER 29, 2026/KR




Signature Not Verified
Page 6 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
13:08:50