Prashant Tyagi vs State Nct Of Delhi

$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: 04 November, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010242402026
+ BAIL APPLN. 2050/2026
PRASHANT TYAGI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Virender Verma, Advocate
(through VC)

versus

STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP
ACP Kishor Kumar
SI Beena, PS Dwarka
Mr. Sarthak Karol, Adv. DHCLSC
with Ms. Neelakshi Bhadauria, Adv.
for R-2

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (Oral):

1. The present application has been filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), seeking regular bail to
the petitioner, i.e., Prashant Tyagi, S/o Om Prakash Tyagi, in connection with
th
the First Information Report (“FIR”) being FIR No. 412/2025 , dated 06
November, 2025, registered at Police Station (“PS”) Dwarka North, Dwarka,
Delhi, under Sections 80/85/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
(“BNS”) and under Section 333 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(“IPC”)/Section 115(2) of the BNS and also under Section 3(1)(r)/3(1)(s)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:20:32
Page 1 of 8

/3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“SC/ST Act”).
2. The facts, culled out from the document on record, relevant for the
adjudication of the present application, are as follows:
2.1. The present FIR was registered on the basis of Daily Diary (“DD”)
th
bearing No. 54A dated 05 November, 2025, recorded pursuant to a Police
Control Room (“PCR”) call, wherein, it was reported that a woman, later
identified as Shikha, had fallen from terrace.
2.2. The victim was taken to Akash Hospital, Dwarka, Delhi, wherein, she
was declared unfit for statement, and shortly thereafter, succumbed to her
injuries. As per the post mortem report, the cause of death was opined to be a
head injury due to blunt force impact.
2.3. During the course of investigation, the statements of the parents of the
deceased were recorded, wherein, details regarding cruelty, threats,
humiliation and prior incidents were disclosed. Further, the brother of the
deceased, and other witnesses were examined, who also corroborated the
allegations of domestic friction, and that on the day of the incident, loud
noises of quarrelling were heard immediately prior to the fall.
2.4. Evidence was collected and sent to FSL examination. During
investigation, it came to fore that there was a chain of domestic violence,
harassment and caste-based abuse.
2.5. After the conclusion of the investigation, and on the basis of the
evidence collected, the Chargesheet was filed before the Trial Court against
the petitioner, among others.
2.6. The petitioner’s earlier application seeking bail was dismissed by the
st
Trial Court vide order dated 21 April, 2026.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:20:32
Page 2 of 8

3. The Sessions Case, being SC 8/2026, is pending adjudication before the
Court of Additional Sessions Judge (“ASJ”) – 02, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi,
and is presently at the stage of awaiting Forensic Science Laboratory (“FSL”)
Report to be filed.
th
4. As per the latest Nominal Roll dated 15 July, 2026, furnished by the
th
Jail Authorities, the petitioner has been in custody since 08 November, 2025,
th
i.e., for a period of 08 (eight) months and 08 (eight) days, as of 15 July, 2026.
5. On behalf of the petitioner, the following case has been put forth:
5.1. The petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents, and the
petitioner was living a happy matrimonial life with the deceased.
5.2. Further, the deceased has not left behind any suicide note disclosing her
cause of death, and therefore no presumption of dowry death is attracted.
5.3. The deceased, her family and relatives, never made any complaint to
the police authority or Court, CAW Cell, or any other statutory body in respect
of harassment of the deceased on account of dowry demands.
5.4. The petitioner, before the marriage and at the time of marriage, was
fully aware about the facts that the deceased belonged to the SC/ST
community and therefore, there is no question of invoking the provisions of
the SC&ST Act.
5.5. The Chargesheet has been filed, and therefore, the investigation is
complete. Further, the entire oral and documentary evidence has been placed
on record, and there is no chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence.
5.6. The entire case of the prosecution rests upon the statement of the
interested witnesses, i.e., mother, father, grandfather, brother and friend of the
deceased, so there is no chance of tampering with the material witnesses in
any manner whatsoever.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:20:32
Page 3 of 8

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor (“APP”) for the State informs the
Court that the charges are yet to be framed in the matter.
th
7. The State has placed on record a Status Report dated 14 July, 2026,
emerging from which, the case of the prosecution against the present
application is as follows:
7.1. The case involves unnatural death of the deceased, i.e., a married
woman, coupled with continuous cruelty, dowry harassment and caste-based
atrocities, which are grave and serious.
7.2. The allegations against the petitioner are a form of a continuous course
of cruelty and violence over a prolonged period, moreover, the deceased was
last in the custody and company of the petitioner.
7.3. The petitioner may influence/threaten the material witnesses, as they
are known to him, moreover, crucial forensic reports are presently awaited
and the petitioner may tamper with the evidence if enlarged on bail.
8. Learned counsel for the Legal Representatives (“LRs”)/kith and kins of
nd
the deceased has placed on record written synopsis dated 22 July, 2026, on
their behalf, the case emerging wherefrom, is as follows:
8.1. The present case arises out of the unnatural death of a married woman
within 07 (seven) years of an inter-caste marriage, occurring against the
backdrop of a sustained, multi-year pattern of physical cruelty, dowry-related
harassment and caste-based atrocity by the petitioner and his family.
8.2. The Trial Court, by way of a reasoned order on merits, has already
rejected the petitioner’s prayer for regular bail on materially the same facts
now placed before this Court.
8.3. The investigation is expressly incomplete as determinative forensic
reports, on which the very manner of death depends, are still awaited and are
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:20:32
Page 4 of 8

to be placed on record by way of supplementary Chargesheet.
9. Having heard learned counsels appearing for the parties, this Court
notes that the present case involves allegations of dowry death, cruelty and
harassment, wherein, the deceased died after falling down from the terrace,
and was last in the company of the petitioner. The case pertains to unnatural
death of a married woman within seven years of inter-caste marriage.
10. As per the case of the prosecution, the deceased belonged to a
Scheduled Caste Community and the matrimonial relationship between the
petitioner and the deceased was marked throughout by continuous cruelty,
unlawful dowry demands and repeated caste-based slurs.
11. During the course of investigation, statements of the mother, father and
brother of the deceased have been recorded wherein, they have detailed dowry
demands and caste-based abuse since marriage in the year 2019. The
chargesheet also makes reference to statement of an independent non-family
witness, who has stated that the petitioner physically assaulted and insulted
the deceased. Accordingly, the allegations against the petitioner of dowry
harassment, caste-based atrocity leading to death of his wife, are grave and
serious.
12. This Court also takes note of the prior complaints against the petitioner
and his family at PS Dwarka (North) and PS Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad, which
were closed “as compromised”. Thus, a consistent pattern of assault and abuse
has come to the fore which is supported by witness statements, prior
complaints and PCR calls.
13. It is further to be noted that charges in the matter are yet to be framed
and public witnesses are yet to be examined. The material witnesses are
family members of the deceased wife of the petitioner, as well as a close friend
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:20:32
Page 5 of 8

of the deceased. Thus, it is apparent that the material witnesses are known to
the petitioner and there is strong likelihood of influence, if he is released.
14. In this regard, this Court affords attention to the observations made by
th
the Supreme Court in the order dated 27 November, 2024, titled as X Versus
State of Rajasthan and Another. , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539 , 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. The relevant excerpts of the said order are
as under:
“xxx xxx xxx
14. 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 .
15. Over a period of time, we have noticed two things, i.e., (i)
either bail is granted after the charge is framed and just before
the victim is to be examined by the prosecution before the trial
court, or (ii) bail is granted once the recording of the oral
evidence of the victim is complete by looking into some
discrepancies here or there in the deposition and thereby testing
the credibility of the victim.
16. We are of the view that the aforesaid is not a correct
practice that the Courts below should adopt. Once the trial
commences, it should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion
which may either result in the conviction of the accused or
acquittal of the accused. The moment the High Court exercises
its discretion in favour of the accused and orders release of the
accused on bail by looking into the deposition of the victim, it
will have its own impact on the pending trial when it comes to
appreciating the oral evidence of the victim. It is only in the event
if the trial gets unduly delayed and that too for no fault on the
part of the accused, the Court may be justified in ordering his
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:20:32
Page 6 of 8

release on bail on the ground that right of the accused to have a
speedy trial has been infringed.
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
15. Further, in its decision 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.
(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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:20:32
Page 7 of 8

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)
16. Accordingly, considering the submissions made before this Court, no
ground is found to grant bail at this stage.
17. However, it is clarified that any observations made herein are only for
the purposes of deciding the present application for bail. Nothing contained
herein shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.
18. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed.


MINI PUSHKARNA, J
NOVEMBER 4, 2026/KR




Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:20:32
Page 8 of 8