Delhi HC Denies Bail To Man Accused Of Shooting Azad Singh, Citing Weapon Recovery And Two Eyewitnesses Yet To Testify

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted regular bail in view of his custody and the progress of the trial, notwithstanding the seriousness of the charge and the material alleged against him.

The court held

The Court answered the bail issue against the petitioner and dismissed the petition, finding it not to be a fit case for grant of regular bail.

It also directed

It clarified that its observations were prima facie and would not constitute a final opinion on guilt or innocence.

01Facts

Praveen sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in FIR No. 450/2022, registered under Section 302 IPC and subsequently chargesheeted under Sections 302/34 IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act

pp. 1–2

The prosecution alleged that two eyewitnesses saw Praveen shoot the deceased with a country-made pistol after a co-accused restrained him; the weapon and an empty cartridge were stated to have been recovered at Praveen’s instance

pp. 2, 3–4

The trial was pending at the prosecution-evidence stage.

pp. 2–4

Nineteen of 43 prosecution witnesses had been examined, but the two eyewitnesses had not; the petitioner’s nominal roll recorded custody of three years, seven months and 15 days as of 14 April 2026.

pp. 2–4

His earlier bail application had been dismissed by the Sessions Court.

p. 2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner should be granted regular bail in view of his custody and the progress of the trial, notwithstanding the seriousness of the charge and the material alleged against him.

pp. 2–4

ii.2. Whether the fact that the two eyewitnesses remained unexamined warranted bail while the trial was ongoing.

pp. 3–4

03Law Applied

Section 483 BNSS empowers the High Court to grant bail.

p. 1

In assessing bail, the court must consider the nature of the accusation, the severity of the potential punishment, the evidence supporting the charge, any reasonable risk of witness intimidation or tampering, and the genuineness of the prosecution case, as reflected in Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi).

p. 4

Relying on X v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. and State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan, the Court noted that in serious offences, including murder, courts should be cautious about granting bail once trial has commenced; neither filing of the chargesheet nor the prospect of a prolonged trial, by itself, entitles an accused to bail.

pp. 4–5

Under Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, delay or long incarceration cannot alone justify bail without consideration of the prima facie case, gravity of the offence and alleged witness-tampering risks.

pp. 4–5

Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 302 Section 34

Arms Act, 1959 Section 25 Section 27

04Reasoning

The Court weighed the petitioner’s custody and the fact that the two eyewitnesses had not yet testified against the gravity of the murder charge, the alleged recovery of the weapon at his instance, and the prima facie material implicating him as the shooter.

pp. 3–5

It held that the ongoing trial and the unexamined eyewitnesses did not, in the circumstances, make the case fit for bail; continued trial proceedings alone could not outweigh the serious allegations and incriminating material.

p. 5