Bail Denied in Alleged Honour Killing Case Despite Parity Claims and Prolonged Incarceration

The petitioner, Salam @ Channa, sought regular bail in FIR No. 999/2021 (PS Rajouri Garden) involving charges of murder and arms violations.

The prosecution alleges a case of "honour killing" where the petitioner (maternal uncle of a girl) caught hold of the deceased, Dablu, while the co-accused, Farhan (the girl's brother), stabbed him due to a romantic involvement between the deceased and the girl.

The petitioner has been in custody since December 2, 2021.

A previous bail application was withdrawn on February 7, 2026, with liberty to refile after the testimony of the deceased's parents.

Since then, the mother of the deceased has testified, supporting the prosecution’s claim regarding the petitioner’s specific role.

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail based on the parity of role with co-accused who were granted bail and the duration of his custody.

2. Whether the delay in the conclusion of the trial constitutes a sufficient ground for the grant of bail in a case of alleged honour killing.

The Court primarily considered the provisions for regular bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (corresponding to the Code of Criminal Procedure) in relation to Section 302 (Murder), 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence), 149 (Unlawful assembly), and 34 (Common intention) of the IPC, alongside Sections 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act.

The court also applied the principle of "Parity," evaluating whether the role of the applicant was equivalent to co-accused who were already released.

The principle that the gravity of the offence and the nature of evidence (testimony of material witnesses) are primary considerations in bail matters.

The Court rejected the petitioner's plea for parity, noting that while co-accused Chand Ali and Raja Babu were granted bail, their roles were limited to mere presence at the spot.

In contrast, the petitioner’s role—physically restraining the victim to facilitate the stabbing—is "completely distinguishable" and more severe.

Regarding the delay in trial, the Court observed that a prior judicial order found no delay attributable to the State or the Court.

The Court emphasized that the recent testimony of the deceased's mother, which supports the prosecution, strengthens the case against the petitioner.

The Court characterized the motive as an "honour killing," which adds to the gravity of the offense and outweighs the petitioner's clean antecedents.

The Bail Application (BAIL APPLN. 1765/2026) was dismissed and the Court directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Jail Superintendent to inform the petitioner.