Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Ravinder Dudeja, granted regular bail to an accused who had been in judicial custody since November 2023 in a case registered under Sections 307, 385, 506, 120-B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
While acknowledging the gravity of the charges, the Court emphasized that continued incarceration in the absence of direct involvement in the assault, coupled with the grant of bail to similarly placed co-accused, justified the extension of bail.
The Court observed that the only allegation against the applicant was instigation by exhortation (“Maaro”) during the second incident at the hospital and that no overt act or weapon recovery was attributed to him. Accordingly, the Court allowed the bail application, subject to stringent conditions
.
“Prolonged custody, absence of any direct role in the assault, and parity with co-accused already on bail weigh in favour of granting liberty to the applicant,” the Court held.
Facts
The case arose from a violent clash on 5 November 2023 at Rakabganj, Chandni Mahal, Delhi, between two families with a history of enmity. The complainant, along with his nephew, alleged that they were attacked by their neighbours, including several named individuals. The dispute allegedly stemmed from extortion demands of ₹5 lakhs and earlier criminal cases initiated by the complainant.
During the altercation, the complainant sustained minor injuries while his nephew suffered multiple grievous head injuries inflicted with a wooden bat. Subsequently, while the injured was being treated at LNJP Hospital, the accused allegedly returned and attacked him again using a surgical blade.
The FIR was registered under Sections 307, 385, 506, 120-B, and 34 IPC, and the police seized weapons, blood-stained clothes, and CCTV footage. The applicant was not named in the original FIR but was later implicated during investigation on allegations that he instigated co-accused Rehan to assault the complainant’s nephew.
Issues
- Whether the applicant’s prolonged custody and limited role justified grant of bail despite the serious nature of the charges under Section 307 IPC.
- Whether the principle of parity could apply when co-accused, allegedly with greater involvement, had already been granted bail.
- Whether apprehension of witness intimidation was sufficient to deny bail in the absence of direct evidence linking the applicant to the assault.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner, through counsel, contended that he had been in judicial custody for more than 18 months without any grant of interim bail, and only four out of thirty-six prosecution witnesses had been examined so far. The trial, therefore, was unlikely to conclude soon.
He argued that he had no previous convictions, maintained deep social roots, and was the sole breadwinner for his family, which had been facing severe financial hardship.
The defence maintained that the FIR was lodged with mala fide intent, as the complainant had a history of animosity against the petitioner’s family and had previously lodged two false FIRs (Nos. 69/2012 and 79/2012), in which the petitioner and his relatives were later acquitted.
It was also submitted that the FIR was delayed by almost 24 hours, which raised doubts about its authenticity. The applicant’s name did not appear in the original FIR, and none of the key witnesses, including the complainant and the injured (PW-1 and PW-4), attributed any specific act of violence to him.
Furthermore, the defence pointed out that three other co-accused, who were more directly implicated, had already been granted bail by the High Court, and therefore, the principle of parity should be extended to the petitioner as well.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, opposed the bail plea, submitting that the applicant had actively conspired with the main accused, Rehan, to attack the complainant’s nephew a second time inside LNJP Hospital.
It was contended that while Rehan used a surgical blade to inflict the injuries, the applicant instigated the attack by shouting “Maaro”, thereby sharing common intention under Section 34 IPC. The prosecution maintained that such acts revealed a deliberate and coordinated attempt to kill the victim.
The State further argued that another accused, Salman, had been declared a proclaimed offender and was absconding. Given that the petitioner and the complainant lived in the same locality, there existed a serious apprehension of witness intimidation and potential harm to the complainant’s family.
Additionally, it was pointed out that the applicant had a past criminal history, indicating habitual involvement in violent offences, which made him likely to reoffend if released.
Analysis of the Law
The Court referred to established principles governing the grant of bail in cases under Section 307 IPC. While acknowledging that attempt to murder is a grave offence, the Court reiterated that bail must not be withheld as a matter of punishment before conviction.
It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40, emphasizing that detention pending trial must be justified by necessity, not by the gravity of accusation alone. The Court also invoked principles laid down in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand (1977) 4 SCC 308, that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception.”
Applying these precedents, the Court concluded that the applicant’s continued incarceration despite the absence of a direct role and the pendency of a protracted trial violated his right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Bench further applied the doctrine of parity, observing that co-accused Irfan and Gayasuddin, who were directly involved in the first assault, had already been granted bail by the same court on 20 May 2025. The applicant’s alleged role was limited to instigation, not participation, in the second incident.
The Court also noted that no recovery had been made from the applicant, and no injury had been attributed to him personally, weakening the prosecution’s case of active participation.
Precedent Analysis
- Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40 — Bail is not to be withheld as pre-trial punishment; detention must be justified by the necessity of investigation or prevention of interference.
Applied to underline that prolonged custody without progress in trial violates personal liberty. - State of Rajasthan v. Balchand (1977) 4 SCC 308 — “Bail is the rule and jail is the exception.”
Invoked to reiterate the principle of liberty where no direct role is established. - Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 — Cautioned courts against routine denial of bail when allegations are uncorroborated by substantial evidence.
Cited to highlight that FIR delay and lack of attribution weaken the prosecution’s case. - Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018) 3 SCC 22 — Emphasized that presumption of innocence applies even during trial; bail decisions must be humane and rational.
Used to reinforce that liberty cannot be sacrificed solely on allegations of conspiracy.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish any overt act on part of the applicant. The weapon (surgical blade) was recovered from co-accused Rehan, and the CCTV footage did not show the applicant inflicting any injuries.
Justice Dudeja observed that the applicant’s alleged instigation (“Maaro”) could not, by itself, justify prolonged detention, particularly when direct perpetrators were already on bail.
The Court acknowledged the State’s apprehension regarding potential threat to witnesses but held that such concerns could be effectively addressed by imposing stringent bail conditions, including restrictions on movement and contact with witnesses.
The Court, therefore, balanced the principles of liberty, parity, and protection of witnesses, holding that the applicant’s role was ancillary, and prolonged pre-trial incarceration was disproportionate.
Conclusion
In light of the applicant’s limited role, prolonged custody, and bail granted to co-accused with more serious allegations, the Court held that the applicant deserved the benefit of parity and liberty.
Accordingly, the application was allowed, and the applicant was admitted to regular bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹30,000 with one surety to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
The bail was subject to stringent conditions:
- The applicant must cooperate with the trial and not contact or threaten witnesses.
- He must remain within Delhi-NCR and inform the police of any change in address or mobile number.
- Any breach would result in automatic cancellation of bail.
The petition was thus disposed of, with the Court cautioning that the observations would not affect the merits of the ongoing trial.
Implications
This judgment reaffirms the principle that bail cannot be denied solely on the basis of allegations where direct evidence is lacking and trials are delayed. It underscores that instigation without overt participation does not warrant indefinite custody.
By applying the principle of parity, the Court reinforced judicial consistency in bail jurisprudence and ensured that similarly placed accused are treated equitably. The decision also illustrates the Court’s evolving approach toward balancing individual liberty with witness protection through conditional bail mechanisms.
FAQs
1. Can an accused who allegedly instigated an assault be granted bail?
Yes, if there is no evidence of direct participation or injury caused, and co-accused with graver roles are already on bail, the court may grant bail on parity and proportionality grounds.
2. What is the significance of the principle of parity in bail decisions?
Parity ensures that similarly placed co-accused are treated alike, promoting consistency and fairness in judicial decisions.
3. Does prolonged custody influence bail decisions?
Yes. When trials are delayed and the accused has spent significant time in custody without progress, courts lean towards granting bail to protect constitutional liberty.
